Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Pre-school Playgroups

Mr. Tim Renton: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the Pre-school Playgroups Association. Pre-school playgroups started 15 years ago, and there are now more than 9,000 playgroups which are members of the association and 400,000 three and four-year-olds at these groups. Attendance fees are paid by the parents, and funds are raised by voluntary effort to make ends meet. The cost to the public purse of these pre-school playgroups is under £1 per child per year, compared with £700 per child per year for places in nursery education.
The story of playgroups is one of success, self-reliance, and community involvement. In the process of providing for their own children, parents have grown in confidence in relation to the

children, other parents and society at large. The Pre-school Playgroups Association is now a movement in its own right and the happy alternative to nursery education.
This week has been National Playgroup Week, and as a grand finale to that week the Pre-school Playgroups Association wishes to petition this House.
The petition
Sheweth,
That for fifteen years parents and children have enjoyed playing and learning together in playgroups, and
That the Pre-school Playgroups Association and their supporters want to make sure that tomorrow's families can continue to work together to help their own children.
Wherefore we urge your Honourable House to do all within its power to support the development of the playgroup movement and to help it have a permanent place in future provision for the under-fives.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT

Return ordered,
of the Report to the Lord President of the Council of the Committee of Inquiry into the House of Commons Refreshment Department."—[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

RESTRICTION OF PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE

'1.—(1) It shall not be lawful to print or publish or cause or procure to be printed or published in relation to any judicial proceedings under this Act any particulars other than the following, that is to say—

(a) the names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses;
(b) a concise statement of the charges, defences and counter charges in support of which evidence has been given;
(c) submissions on any point of law arising in the course of the proceedings and the decision of the court thereon;
(d) interlocutors of the presiding judge but not the judge's opinion.

(2) If any person acts in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he shall be in respect of each offence liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding two thousands pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine:

Provided that no person other than a proprietor, editor, master printer or publisher shall be liable to be convicted under this section '—[Mr. Fairbairn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.8 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The effect of this new clause is quite simple. Under the 1926 Act, publication in a divorce case in Scotland is restricted to the names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses, a concise submission of the charges, defence, and counter-charges in support of which evidence is to be given, and submissions on any point of law arising in the proceedings of the court thereof. That is the present restriction, and that restriction, which was brought in after the first baby Russell case, applied to the law of England and of Scotland to prevent the private details of private family life from being published in the Press.
In effect, however, that provision is often frustrated, because the Act does not

go on to restrict publication of the judgment or opinions of the presiding judge. Therefore, while there is no publication of personal and private details of private lives during the case, as soon as the judge, in his judgment, refers to them, the law as laid down and agreed is frustrated, because the Press is permitted to publish what the judge says about the evidence, even though it cannot publish the evidence itself.
Accordingly, the effect of the clause is to restrict the publication in addition, allowing that of the interlocutor of the judge who gives the judgment, that is to say, states his finding of divorce, expenses, custody, and so on. It does not allow publication of the discussion of the evidence which in his opinion frustrates the purpose of the clause under the 1926 Act.
I have had the courtesy of a very full letter from the Lord Advocate, for which I particularly thank him. I hope that he will not mind if I refer to the argument that he puts forward in the letter, because I must rebut in advance the argument that he will propose today. He says
It is an unhappy fact of life that the more intimate details of people's private lives, and particularly those of well-known people, are of consuming interest to many and that this is recognised, and fed, by certain newspapers.
It is an unhappy fact of life, and the 1926 Act attempts to put a stop to it, but there is a loophole, which my clause seeks to close, and it seems to me that it was to prevent the consuming interest of people in the private details of the lives of others which are none of their business that the 1926 Act was passed. I hope that my clause will prevent the frustration of that Act.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): As the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said, his clause is based upon the precedent of the 1926 Act. The main change made in it as now presented, compared with what he tabled in Committee, is that he has sought to allow publication only of interlocutors of the presiding judge, excluding everything else. I am bound to accept that to that extent he goes part of the way towards the argument I put against him in Committee. I am grateful to him for that in yielding to some extent to my


argument. He has improved the clause. It is better that way, because it does not have the deleterious secondary effect that his earlier clause would have had, of tending to make the judge think twice when writing his opinion and, instead of putting down honestly and straightforwardly the reasons for his judgment, perhaps having to do a double exercise and consider what could and should not be reported.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for writing to me. I have considered the matter further and I am grateful for his remarks about my letter. It would he wrong, however, to give effect in this context to the measure that he proposes. The 1926 Act, upon which he founds his argument, was a Great Britain measure, enacted in response to extensive and sensational coverage of divorce cases at the time. The Act was apparently intended to protect public morals and family life which, it was thought, would be endangere—corrupted and undermined—by these reports. It has a part to play, and to that extent I have sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Obviously to some extent it extends privacy to parties to matrimonial causes. Their privacy is better protected with this measure than without it, but I must ask the House to reject the clause on grounds of principle. We are setting the desire to give some additional protection to the parties in matrimonial causes against the more important vital principle that publicity
is the authentic mark of judicial as distinct from administrative procedure.
We in this House should not lightly abandon the conception that judicial proceedings in matrimonial proceedings ought to be basically open and public, and that only where a strong case is made should a restriction be imposed upon that. If we do so in a particular class of case it should only be where there is a clear need and demand for it.
Apart from the 1926 Act, exceptions to the principle of open justice have been few and far between. Mostly, they seem to concern matters affecting children, where it is important to prevent publication of material which could lead to their identification. Examples would be children's hearings and adoption proceedings.
It is clear that Parliament has jealously guarded (he right of the public to know how justice is being administered by the courts and has upheld the right of the Press to publish the observations of judges. Justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done, and that is the principle upon which I stand.
Against the public interest one has to balance the interest of private persons in their privacy, and if a significantly widespread feeling of dissatisfaction on this matter were to develop in Scotland there would be a case for instituting some degree of inquiry to elicit views on the problem from interested parties and to formulate the proposals. But I would have thought that one would want the widest discussion for a matter of this kind before putting forward legislative proposals.
I am not aware of any significant demand in Scotland for a restriction on publicity going beyond the restriction in the 1926 Act and I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman's views are not very widely shared. As I said in Committee, the Press
is an essential watchdog of our freedom, and one should be reluctant to exclude the Press from court proceedings, and particularly from access to the judgment of the court, because that is when a judicial determination is made on issues which have been tried before the court. It would be an unhappy day if we were to say that in proceedings, even matrimonial proceedings, the Press and public should not have access to the full reasoning of the court in reaching its decision, so I would oppose the merits of the amendments for that first reason."—[Official Report, Second Scottish Standing Committee; 7th April 1976, c. 210.]
On that point the hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment is worse than the one he put forward in Committee, because if only the interlocutor can be published one has no access to the reasoning of the judge, and I would have thought we would end up with the worst of all possible worlds.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to the Lord Advocate, although I do not accept any of his reasoning. If one wants access to the opinion of the judge one can read it in the law reports, which is the proper place for it. That does not seem to me to be an argument for revealing the details of the private lives of those who go through the divorce


Courts—and many who have been there have made the complaint. No one else will obviously do so. It does not seem to me that exposure of the details of their private lives has anything to do with justice being manifestly seen to be done.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 2

GRANTING OF DIVORCES WHERE THERE IS NO COHABITATION

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1(2)(e) of this Act the court may grant decree of divorce on the ground of breakdown of the marriage when there has been no cohabitation between the parties at any time during a continuous period of two years and less than five years after the date of the marriage and immediately preceding the bringing of the action even when the defender does not consent to the granting of decree of divorce if in all the circumstances including the interests of the children of the marriage and any other children of either spouse and the prospects of marriage and the likely capacity for childbirth of the wife or paramour of the husband, the Court is of opinion that the marriage has broken down and that the consent of the defender to the granting of decree of divorce is being unreasonably withheld "—[Mr. Fairbairn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fairbairn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause is, in terms, the same as the new clause that I canvassed in Committee, and its purposes are quite simple. Under the new Act the sole ground of divorce, at present, is the breakdown of marriage. That can be established by proving what were the old matrimonial offences of adultery, cruelty, which I believe is now called unbearable conduct, and also separation for a period of two years with consent. In other words, there has been a change in the law on the concept of the offence of desertion. Whereas previously divorce was obtainable only by the sponse who was deserted for a period of three years, it is now obtainable by the deserting spouse without consent after five years and with consent after two years.
The Act therefore introduces the concept that the offending party, that is to say, the deserting party and not the deserted party—or, in the old language, the guilty party—may obtain a divorce.

That situation never previously applied. I can understand the logic of saying that that is a bad principle, and that persons who have committed no matrimonial offence under the old language should not be allowed to be divorced at all. After all, they entered into marriage for better or for worse—"until death us do part"—and they may hold the strictest religious, moral or philosophical principles, believing that they have done nothing wrong and that marriage should last for ever. One can understand the logic of that stance.
One can understand, equally, the practicality of the position that if the marriage has broken down it is pointless perpetuating it, and that, therefore, either spouse in a broken marriage should be entitled to obtain the final recognition of its death. But what is utterly illogical is to say that divorce can be obtained against the will of the innocent party after five years. That satisfies neither principle.
The purpose of my new clause is to ensure, if that principle must be accepted, that the spouse who has committed no matrimonial offence in a marriage that has broken down for good is not allowed, for reasons of obtuseness, spite, obstinacy, cruelty, greed or blackmail, to refuse to allow the other spouse to enter into a lawful marriage for another three years. That extra period of three years was put into the English Act not, as it was thought, to protect men but to protect women, but it has usually operated to the detriment of women who have been anxious to form another marriage and to have legitimate children. They have been unable to do so because of that provision.
I have in mind the situation in which a husband says "I shall be happy to give you my consent on condition that you make no financial claim against me. If you make any financial claim, you can just be married to me for another three years." Equally, one can imagine the wife saying, "I shall be happy to give you my consent if you give me £10,000 a year. If you do not, I shall deny you your wish to form another marriage and have legitimate children. I shall bargain that for your money." That is an extremely bad situation.
The Lord Advocate again had the great courtesy to write to me in detail


giving the Government's reasons for finding my clause unacceptable. With his permission, I shall again quote from his letter, in which he says:
Clause 1(2)(e)"—
the relevant clause—
introduces for the first time in Scots law the principle of divorce by compulsion in cases where the defender has not committed a matrimonial offence and can be divorced against his or her will…In all cases where the parties had lived apart for two years, the pursuer would be able to require the defender to appear in court—including a defender who has contributed in no way whatever to the alleged breakdown of the marriage—and to justify under cross-examination the reason why he or she wishes the marriage to continue for the time being…
The proposed amendment would substantially undermine the policy of clause (1)(2)(d), one aim of which is to give defenders (including,ex hypothesi entirely innocent defenders) the right to give or withhold consent freely.
With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it does not give defenders the right to give or withhold consent freely. It gives them the right to withhold consent only for two or five years, but not thereafter, so it breaches the very principle on which the argument is founded.
The Lord Advocate says, as is perfectly correct:
In many cases, a refusal to grant consent will be entirely on conscientiously held moral or religious grounds and will not, therefore, be a justiciable issue.
For any defender or pursuer, that is obviously a reasonable ground for withholding consent for ever rather than for five years. But in many cases that will not be the reason. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says:
In other cases, consent will be withheld in the very sincere belief that there is still some hope for the marriage.
The court will be able to decide whether that is valid when it hears the evidence.
Next, the Lord Advocate says:
The amendment runs directly counter to the Bill's main aim of giving dead marriages a decent burial with the minimum of embarrassment, humiliation and bitterness.
I am not concerned with the many cases that will fall into the category of religious or conscientious objection, or with people who believe, hope against hope, that the marriage may yet survive. I believe that there is a large category of cases in which pure bloody-mindedness, spite, narrow-mindedness, short-sighted-

ness or financial gain may well be the reason, and I do not think it right that the House should pass a law which in England has acted contrary to the interests of those whom it was intended to protect and in Scotland can be used to act contrary to the interests of the parties to the marriage.
Therefore, far from running counter to the Bill's aim of giving marriages a decent burial, the clause will enable marriages that are dead to be buried without the spite or acrimony in which refusal of consent with no substantial reason, moral or otherwise, would result. I feel strongly about these special cases, where there is no reasonable ground for withholding consent and thus preventing another marriage after two years and before five, or preventing legitimate children being born. Illegitimate children can be born and can never be legitimised, because there is at the time a bar to the marriage. It is wrong that there should be an Act that will force any children born in those three years to be for ever illegitimate, when we can remedy the situation by a rational compromise.

The Lord Advocate: As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, I wrote to him at length about this proposal. I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's sincerity and accept that it is true that he would give relief to a small additional category—but at considerable expense. It is equally true that what he is doing is an extension of the principle embodied in the Bill, but the Bill must achieve a balance that is right for this time and I think that his proposal goes beyond that balance.
Clause 1(2)(e) already introduces into the law of Scotland the principle of divorce by compulsion of a person who has ex hypothesi done no wrong and has not contributed to the breakdown of marriage. No act of adultery, cruelty, desertion or conduct justifying non-adherence can be proved against him or her, otherwise the pursuer would rely on paragraphs (a) to (c) of Clause 1(2). The new clause goes even further. An innocent spouse who has not contributed to the breakdown is not only to be divorced against his or her will, but is to be called upon to justify to the court his or her reasons for resisting divorce. On humane grounds, this seems wholly unacceptable, because it goes to the root of consent.
Secondly, the new clause will introduce an element of compulsion or blackmail into Clause 1(2)(d). Under the Bill, the consent can be freely given or freely withheld. But if the new clause is accepted the pursuer will always be able to threaten the defender with legal proceedings—a defender who may well be a working-class wife or husband who does not know the ropes, is afraid of the law, the courts, legal documents and legal proceedings. Such a person would be very vulnerable to the threat of an enforced appearance, an inquisition, in court. By a side wind, therefore, the new clause will destroy the basis of Clause 1(2)(d), since one could never be sure that the consent had been freely given or freely withheld.
Thirdly, while it is reasonable to allow the courts to apply a test of "unreasonable withholding of consent" in matters like a tenants' assignation of a lease, or a consent by a parent to adoption—where the welfare of the child is the first consideration—the test appears quite inappropriate to divorce. In many cases, the reasonableness of withholding consent will not be a justiciable issue.
11.30 a.m.
If a spouse, for example, says that he or she has conscientious or moral objections to divorce, the judge cannot investigate these questions of conscience and morality and override them as unreasonable. Again, an insane person cannot give his consent and, as under the present law, the Bill provides, in effect, that unless his behaviour justifies non-adherence the other spouse must wait five years. Consideration of the reasonableness of the withholding of consent is then wholly out of place.
Let us take the case of a working-class, middle-aged wife whose husband deserts her for a younger woman, or perhaps for reasons of mere incompatibility. She hopes against hope that he will see the error of his ways and return to her. She does not want to be divorced, and may feel the loss of marital status badly. Under the new clause, unless she gives her consent under Clause 1(2)(d), which she does not wish to do, she will find herself cited to appear before the court to explain her attitude and justify her desire to remain married under cross-examination by counsel.
Her reasons for refusing her consent are not such as to warrant Parliament preventing the divorce in due course. But Parliament is surely not justified in requiring vulnerable, middle-aged wives whose husbands have deserted them to justify their resistance to divorce. It will merely increase their misery because they would have to suffer a post-mortem examination of their marriage.
Fourthly, marriage is not a mere contract between private persons; it is a status and forms the basis of our society. But even if it is a contract, it is not the person who wishes the marriage to continue but the person who wishes to terminate it who is breaking the contract. There can be no justification for calling upon a person who wishes to maintan the contract to justify his or her attitude.
Looking at the matter from a contractual point of view, there is a compelling argument against the clause. The party who is seeking to uphold the marriage may not be able to give a rational explanation why he or she wants the marriage to continue, and should not be forced to do so, particularly in a public investigation. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman said at one point —I may have misheard him—that adultery was a bar to the legitimation of illegitimate children, but that is no longer the case. The impediment to their legitimation was removed by the Legitimation (Scotland) Act 1968.

Mr. Fairbairn: What I said was that while the marriage subsists for the period of five years, or the extra three years, if the spouse who has departed has any children by any person he wants to marry, those children would for ever be illegitimate.

The Lord Advocate: I thought that possibly the hon. and learned Gentleman meant that.
Finally, there is no doubt that the new clause runs clean counter to the Bill's principal aim of giving dead marriages a decent burial with the minimum of embarrassment, humiliation and bitterness. It will inevitably means the proliferation of judicial post-mortems into dead marriages because, in adjudicating upon the reasonableness of a spouse's withholding consent, the history of the marriage is bound to be relevant in many


cases. It will add a new, and in many cases unjustifiable, issue to divorce proceedings. It will create uncertainty and, above all, it may destroy the basis for proceeding under Clause 1(2)(d). That is a new provision, involving an element of consent. We would be wise to give that a run before we consider any provision such as this clause. For those reasons, I hope that the clause will be rejected.

Mr. Fairbairn: I have listened to the arguments advanced by the Lord Advocate, and agree that every case he cited would be reasonable grounds for refusing consent. But he has not dealt with those cases where the ground for refusing consent is unreasonable. It may be that the reform that I am proposing is ahead of its time. All the best reforms are. That would seem to me to be a good reason for implementing it.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE TO BE SOLE GROUND OF DIVORCE

Mr. Iain MacCormick: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out from 'that' to end of line 9 and insert
'the marriage has broken down irretrievably'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this Amendment we may take similar Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8.

Mr. MacCormick: The Bill as originally introduced in this House, like the seven previous Scottish Bills, used the concept of "irretrievable breakdown" of the marriage as the sole ground of divorce. Clause 1(1) provided that the sole ground on which divorce might be granted in future would be that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage had occurred. However, irretrievable breakdown is not, legally speaking, a triable issue. Accordingly, Clause 1 (2) as originally introduced set out five fact situations from which alone irretrievable breakdown was to be inferred. The first three corresponded to the old matrimonial offences of adultery, cruelty and desertion and the last two added two new separation periods, namely, two years' separation with the defender's consent

and five years' separation without consent.
There are very strong arguments for reinstating the word "irretrievable". In the first place, as I said on Second Reading—as reported in Hansard for 27th February 1976 at c. 770—this Bill gives us for the first time in Scotland a comprehensive statutory code of the main rules of the substantive law of divorce. In this situation, it seems right that the unifying principle which underlies all the factual situations justifying divorce should be clearly stated and emphasised in the Bill. This principle is the principle of irretrievable breakdown.
There might have been an argument for not inserting that underlying philosophy or principle in the Bill. For example, the Bill could have been drafted so as to set out five fact situations as separate "grounds" of divorce and to say nothing about the underlying principle. But I can see no justification whatever for making explicit the underlying principle in the Bill itself, and then getting it wrong. Yet by leaving out the word "irretrievable" this is surely what we have done.
My first point, therefore, is that, if we state explicitly the underlying principle of the new law of divorce in the Bill itself, we must get it right even though the form of words has no direct legal effect. In the same way, we must get the preamble of our legislation right even although a preamble does not have direct legal effect.
Secondly, I venture to think that it could not be the intention of this House to set out in Clause 1(2) five different fact situations from which remediable, retrievable or temporary breakdown of marriage is to be inferred. Temporary breakdown would be a nonsensical basis for divorce. What we are concerned with in Clause 1(2) is fact situations, any one of which—when taken together with the fact that the pursuer is asking the court to dissolve the marriage—makes it plain that permanent breakdown of the marriage has occurred.
We are not, for example, selecting two years' separation plus consent, or five years' separation without consent, as evidence of temporary breakdown of the marriage. We select periods of such


length because one can then safely predict that the marriage will have broken down permanently or, in other words, irretrievably. Nor are we retaining uncondoned adultery as a basis of divorce because adultery of that type infers temporary breakdown. Experience shows that spouses divorced for adultery, cruelty or desertion do not come together again and remarry, except perhaps the one case in 50,000.
Finally, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the objectives of a good divorce law as these objectives were defined by the two Law Commissions. Paragraph 29 of the Scottish Law Commission's report said:
The objectives of a good divorce law should include (a) the support of marriages which have a chance of survival, and (b) the decent burial with the minimum of embarrassment, humiliation and bitterness of those which are indubitably dead.
In that well-known and oft-quoted key passage, which nobody has challenged, a sharp contrast is drawn between retrievable or temporary breakdown of marriages which have a chance of survival and should be supported and the irretrievable or permanent breakdown of marriages which are indubitably dead and should be terminated by divorce. The Committee stage amendment leaving out "irretrievable" has totally blurred this contrast and so misrepresents the philosophy underlying the Bill. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the House to reinstate the word ill the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 1, line 13, after 'The', insert 'irretrievable'.

No. 3, in page 2, line 21, after 'The', insert 'irretrievable'.

No. 4, in line 44, after 'that', insert 'irretrievable'—[Mr. MacCormick.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 5, at end add:
'(6) In an action for divorce the standard of proof required to establish the ground of the action shall be on a balance of probability.'.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that the standard of proof in all actions for divorce, separation or separation

and aliment should be the normal standard in civil proceedings, namely,
'proof on a balance of probabilities'.
The amendment adds a new subsection to Clause 1. It refers only to divorce, but under Clause 4 the provisions of Clause 1 also apply to actions for separation and separation and aliment. Those who were members of the Committee will remember that I undertook to take an amendment to this effect. I have responded to that undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I may tell hon. Members that, since there will be no Third Reading debate during which the customary congratulations could be offered to the promoter of the Bill, I am prepared to simulate deafness during the debate on Amendment No. 6—but only to allow one speaker from either side. That will enable the usual congratulations to be offered.

Clause 2

ENCOURAGEMENT OF RECONCILIATION

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 7, leave out from 'divorce,' to; and' in line 9 and insert:
'if it appears to the court that there is a reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the parties, it shall continue, or further continue, the action for such period as it thinks proper to enable attempts to be made to effect such a reconciliation'.
This amendment is in response to an undertaking I gave in Committee to strengthen the provisions for reconciliation in Clause 2. I hope that it will commend itself to hon. Members who were anxious that the reconciliation proposals should be effective. There is a genuine hope that when the amendment is added to the Bill it will strengthen it in a manner that will go at least part of the way to meeting the anxieties expressed by hon. Members. In view of the amendment to which we have just agreed, to restore the word "irretrievable", perhaps post mortem or after the fact, I could point out that this amendment gives a degree of meaning to the word "irretrievable" which was not in the Bill before.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) on his good fortune in the Ballot which has enabled him to introduce the Bill. In all frankness, I must say that I was an opponent of previous Bills of the same kind and my opposition to this Bill is no less because it has been introduced by my hon. Friend.
I support the amendment because it seems to offer some kind of stay of execution in the annulment or cancellation of a marriage. It has been argued, before the Bill was presented, that Scottish divorce law was out of step with English divorce law. Quite a number of hon. Members made that point to me. They did not think it necessary to add that English divorce law was superior. It was an affront to them that Scottish law should be different from English law.
I do not accept that. Scottish law is certainly different, but as the Solicitor-General for Scotland pointed out recently. Scottish divorce law has never been the same as English law on divorce since the Reformation.
There are two clauses in the Bill to which I take exception. The first is Clause 1(2)(b), where the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said that I would call hon. Members to offer congratulations. I shall not allow a Third Reading debate on this amendment. I am prepared to permit only congratulations.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Stewart: I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill and have had no opportunity of making my case. I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fault with the Bill is that it regards marriage as a private contract. Marriage must be looked at from the point of view of society as a whole. For that reason I shall be voting against the Bill on Third Reading.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House. I should like to take this opportunity to express my congratulations, and the congratulations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate

and of my hon. Friends, to the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormack) on piloting the Bill through its Committee stage. I think he will agree that it was not a difficult Committee. The Committee had the great good fortune to be made up of lawyers on the one hand and those of us who brought common sense to the matter on the other hand.
As the Bill leaves the House and goes on its way to another place, my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes), Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), all of whom have been involved in previous attempts to achieve what the hon. Member has achieved, would particularly wish to be associated with my congratulations and good wishes. I am sure that many people in Scotland, recognising the need for a reform of the divorce laws, will be grateful to the hon. Member and pleased to know that this measure is nearly on the statute book.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I shall have to extend my period of deafness. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) misunderstood what I was saying. I thought that he intended to offer congratulations. As a matter of fact, I was about to ask him when the congratulations were coming. That was the sole purpose of allowing him to take part in the debate. He may have misunderstood me and I may have misunderstood him. I shall have to be deaf, for another minute, to the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid).

Mr. George Reid: Representing the more radical wing of my party, may I take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr MacCormick) on getting the Bill through the House? He will have taken on board the fact that we have not pressed amendments that we tabled in Committee to the effect that there should be a concurrent jurisdiction in certain designated sheriff courts. My hon. Friend will recognise that we have not pressed those amendments because we accepted his point that had we done so the Bill as a whole might have been jeopardised.
I congratulate my hon. Friend and I hope that on some future occasion the


House may return to consider the amendments relating to the sheriff courts in a new Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 21, after 'The' insert 'irretrievable'.

No. 8, in Clause 4, in page 4, line 9, after 'to', insert "irretrievable'.—[Mr. MacCormick.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading).

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. IAIN MACCORMICK and Mr. GEORGE REID were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. DONALD STEWART was appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

11.52 a.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was proposing to rise to his feet and move that further consideration of the Bill should be adjourned. I see that the hon. Member is now in his place, and he will, no doubt, address you on this matter shortly. Briefly, I should like to put it to you that a cursory look at the Notice Paper will reveal a large number of amendments, a high proportion of which have been selected for debate.
Quite apart from the fact that members of the Standing Committee, who spent many gruelling hours discussing the Bill—a Bill which raises so many points that we are to have a long Report stage in order that new matters may be discussed—have not had sufficient time to digest—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. What is the point of

order? Does the hon. Member wish to give way, now that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is in his place?

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall resume my seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but before doing so I should like to say that to pursue this business now will place the House at a disadvantage for reasons which, I have no doubt, the hon. Member for Newham, South will develop in some detail.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
I should like first to apologise for the slight hiccough at the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) for raising his point of order. I was at the time supporting the Government in the Lobby on a Division which most of us thought was about to take place, not having taken the precaution to ascertain that insufficient Tellers were available. Therefore, the proceedings on this Bill commenced a little sooner than many hon. Members expected. I apologise to the House for any inconvenience which might have been caused.
This, I believe, is technically known as a dilatory motion. The purpose of a motion to adjourn either the House or a Committee is to give an opportunity for discussion of something which Members think is relevant. I hasten to say that I shall use language which I think will be entirely relevant and not dilatory in the pejorative sense of the word; it will be careful and full language, but not over-full, such as is adopted in the courts by the people who practise therein. I hope hon. Members will not think that I am speaking at greater length than can be justified in these circumstances.
We have before us a measure which is undoubtedly controversial. As I understand it, the decision to be made by the House—whether we should enter upon the consideration of the Bill or whether we should adjourn—is not linked specifically to the merits of the measure. What we are concerned with is a matter of procedure, namely, whether it is proper at this time to enter into any discussion on this measure. I submit that that is the


real question we have to decide. The formal question is, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned. That is really asking, should we at this time proceed upon it?
In case there be any misunderstanding about this, I wish to absolve the promoters of the Bill of what might in some quarters be called sharp practice. The Standing Orders of the House make it possible for them to proceed upon the Bill this morning, and I make no complaint about that possibility. After all, the House has willed that that be so. I raised a point of order yesterday and inquired whether those Standing Orders might be reconsidered, but at the moment the Standing Order with which I am concerned is as I have stated it.
However, there are other Standing Orders, including the one on which I am speaking now, which permit the House to have second thoughts, and that is a safeguard of which the House is now availing itself. I am therefore, not accusing anybody of doing anything which is out of order. I suggest, however, that for the promoters of the Bill to oppose this motion would be ill advised. Manifestly there has not been sufficient time in which to consider the Bill.
I concede at once, because it is manifestly self-evident, that the Bill had a Second Reading, and we know that the Second Reading of a Bill is on the principle of the measure. The House can make no complaint about that. However, on 27th February this measure was preceded, as it has been again today, by the Divorce (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill. That Bill has had lengthy consideration on previous occasions, and on 27th February in particular the Divorce (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill unexpectedly finished at 1.32 p.m., when the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) rose to his feet to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
I make no complaint that this Bill which we are now considering received a Second Reading, but it was entered into at an unexpected early hour—indeed, almost as unexpectedly early as we have entered upon these proceedings this morning.
12 noon.
I do not wish to enter into the merits of the Bill. That would be inappropriate

on this particular motion. It would equally be quite wrong, however, to enter into a discussion as to whether we should proceed to deal with the Bill without at least briefly putting forward its main features.
Clause 1 deals with the powers of the licensing magistrates to extend licensing hours in certain premises—it is entirely within their discretion what the premises shall be, with certain conditions attached in the Bill—up to the hour of midnight. That is the main feature of Clause 1.
The main feature of Clause 2 is that the same magistrates may designate certain bars in licensed premises, which, incidentally, are described in a way which might be challenged when the Bill is proceeded with. They are described as:
any bar set aside as a family room".
Nevertheless, they are designated bars which will be accessible to children of all ages up to the age of 16 and for a maximum period up to 8 o'clock in the evening.
Those two provisions are not really complimentary. It cannot be disputed that they are major changes to the licensing laws of England and Wales, despite the words of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe who said "modest" changes. No one can deny that they are major changes in what has become an established practice. The implications of both are considerable.
The question to which we have to address ourselves is the question of parliamentary procedure. In any of our local government councils or, indeed, in any democratic body in this country with standing orders, there is a tradition in respect of notice of business. Certainly in the Labour Party, and in the Liberal Party and, no doubt, other parties, notice of business is a fundamental safeguard to a proper consideration of what the business shall be. Very often in the standing orders or by convention notice of business is sent out through the post a week or a fortnight beforehand. The agendas of public authorities are placed in town and county halls and in public libraries so that the public may see what is coming forward. They can make representations to their councillors, and the


members of those authorities or committees are able to see what business is coming up well in advance.
We have our conventions in this House. We do not insist on any particular notice because, clearly, emergency business of all sorts can arise at short notice. Nevertheless, we were given formal notice of this particular business at 9 o'clock this morning or whenever the Order Paper of the House appeared on these premises.
Hon. Members who are interested in the Bill and who have followed its progress through the House should look carefully at the Vote, which is, of course, the record of acta of the House as distinct from Hansard, which is the verba. They would not have seen the report of the voting in Committee because the Committee did not rise until 4 a.m. yesterday. The fact that it had reported could not be tabled until yesterday afternoon, and a printed record was not available until this morning. Virtually no notice was available until this morning. I fortuitously raised a point of order on this matter yesterday, but it was not part of the procedure of the House. Therefore, the first opportunity which hon. Members had to know that the Bill would be further considered was this morning. This should give us pause for reflection.
I must compliment the official printers, who by yesterday afternoon managed to produce the Bill as amended—a first-class piece of service. We often complain about the printing of papers in this House, but I think that in this case the opposite is true. In respect of the third provision—the verba in the Official Report—some parts were available last night and all of them were available this morning. That is something on which we should congratulate those responsible for the Official Report.
Hon. Members, even were they here, still have to read those proceedings and deliberate upon the amendments. It is important to put down amendments, but only hon. Members who knew the situation were able to do so. As the Committee proceedings finished at 4 a.m. on Thursday, after an exhausting 12-hour session, many Members wanted some sleep, and they would have had to put

down amendments before the House rose last night. On the Order Paper—again a praiseworthy effort—there are no fewer than four new clauses and 38 amendments, but they are all starred. That means that they were put down the day before by the few hon. Members who were able to do so. To some extent they did it blind, apart from hon. Members who served on the Committee.
In the normal course of events in Standing Committee, let alone on the Floor of the House, a starred amendment is not selected. The Chairman of the Committee selected the occasional starred amendment, but it is readily appreciated that there is no procedural obligation to do so
It is unusual, to say the least, for every amendment which is to be taken on the Floor of the House, to be starred. It means that other hon. Members have not been able to see what those amendments are and have not had the opportunity of putting down others. The facts that I am stating would not be contested by hon. Members who support the Bill. They will say, and they are entitled to do so, that there would have been more time had the Committee finished earlier and had certain hon. Gentlemen spoken at shorter length. They are entitled to say that, but I would argue that they have to prove that what was said was not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. John Cartwright: That would not be difficult.

Mr. Spearing: That is a matter for the Chair in the Committee.
Leaving those points aside, I do not think that anything I have said this morning would be challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Cartwright: On a number of occasions the Chairman of the Committee sought to ensure that those hon. Members who spoke at great length and with great repetition related their remarks to the amendments. The Chairman conceded that he had great difficulty in so doing.

Mr. Spearing: The record of the Committee is now available in the Vote Office, and I would dispute what my hon. Friend has said. If he looks at the number of occasions when the Chair had to do


that in respect of myself, and the fact that I was not able to speak on the two major debates in Committee, he will realise that that cuts in both directions.
If we proceed with the Bill now and it receives a Third Reading, which is possible, the British public and Members of Parliament will tomorrow see headlines saying:
Commons says Pubs open to Midnight—Kids in Bars till 8 p.m.
There is nothing to stop that except Members being here and voting. I think that even those who support the Bill must agree that the reaction to such a decision would possibly damage the reputation of this place. Whether they have considered these implications is another question.
There was some controversy recently about the car park in New Palace Yard, about whether it should have been built and whether it should have cost £3 million or £4 million for each car space. The reason why that proposal got through was that it appeared on the Order Paper one Friday morning without notice and went through "on the nod" at 11 a.m.

Mr. Michael Neubert: Would the hon. Gentleman care to correct the record? He has just said—this may be publicised—that each car space cost £3 million or £4 million. Such a statement, if reported, might bring the House into disrepute.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, I cannot permit the hon. Gentleman to answer a point that is entirely out of order. We are not debating the cost of car spaces.

Mr. Spearing: I shall not pursue the point, because I am sure that any grammatical error I may have made will be seen to in the right place.
There was considerable controversy over that matter, and my analogy relates to the procedure of the House. Had it not been for the fact that that matter was not on the Orders of the Day the previous day and virtually no notice was given, it would not have got through as it did. At least there would have been discussion.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is not my hon. Friend aware that, in what is now becoming a long speech—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the hon. Member but for the Chair to make judgments on the length of speeches.

Mr. Thomas: I expressed that view purely for the benefit of my hon. Friend, not for your benefit, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter was raised by him in a packed House yesterday, so that there can be no question of hon. Members being given no notice? In fact, through his action people received more notice than they would normally have done through the appearance of busines on the Order Paper.

Mr. Spearing: I do not know whether my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in these matters, was here when I referred to that point of order. I do not agree that the House was packed, but I shall not pursue that because I do not wish to prolong my speech. However many hon. Members were here by chance at the time, this matter was not on the formal Order Paper or on the informal pieces of paper on which great reliance is placed.
In addition, the Bill has not been given much coverage in the media or the public prints. Neither the House nor the promoters are responsible for that, but it is a matter of record that there has been only minimal reporting of the Committee proceedings and there has not been extensive public discussion of the issues.
12.15 p.m.
We discussed the role of the police at some length in Committee. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East mentioned the matter several times and may have read one letter, but the House has had no evidence from the police. No doubt the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be able to give some indication, if not of the views of the police, at least of whether and when their views will be available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That would not be in order in this debate.

Mr. Spearing: I made the point because if we wish to consider the Bill the views of the police are surely relevant, and if we consider it this morning we shall not have those views. There is no means of obtaining their views about the Bill's merits or about how easy it will be to


enforce, either as it is or as we would amend it.
There was also much discussion in Committee of the views of various trade associations, but little evidence has been available from either of the two main associations. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who has some interest in that matter, was rarely in the Committee. If the motion is agreed, we shall be able to have on the record statements of those associations and, no doubt, those of the police. I understand—but it is only hearsay evidence—that a Select Committee at present sitting has a bearing on this Bill. It is dealing with the influence of alcohol on road accidents. We have not been able to consider that evidence because the Report stage came up so quickly.
We have had some differences recently about the rights of petitioners on a Public Bill. Hon. Members opposite have maintained that petitioners have the right to come to the House six months or so after the Second Reading of a Bill. That sort of time scale does not apply in this case, but if there were petitions the petitioners would not be only those with a trade or property interest: under Clause 2, the rights of children are affected. But children cannot petition and do not have the usual resources which are available to petitioners. If it is thought that petitions should be heard six months after the facts of any matter are made known—I make no comment on the merits—should not those who take that view avoid rushing into consideration of the Bill?
There is great concern about road accidents. If we proceed with consideration today, and perhaps on some other brief occasion, that will be our only opportunity to consider possible effects of Clause 1 on road accidents. Therefore, those who oppose my motion will be open to some criticism. I am not saying that it would be overwhelming, but they should consider that when deciding how to vote.
For all these reasons, I hope that the House will accept the motion.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I invite the House to reject the attempt to adjourn further proceedings on the Bill. The hon. Member for Newham,

South (Mr. Spearing) and other hon. Members who are in their places to support him are complaining about the consequence of delays in the Committee proceedings on the Bill which they caused by their conduct in Committee. Yesterday I used the word "filibuster" about a group of hon. Members on the Committee. I do not withdraw that word, but I did not use it in any pejorative sense.
What shone out through the Committee was the fanatical sincerity of a small band of hon. Members who thought that the Bill would do harm and sought to stop it. The method which they used for that purpose was responsible for the long hours during which the Committee sat and the late hour of the conclusion of our proceedings. The hon. Members made long speeches. I accept that it is for the Chairman of the Committee to decide what is in order, and if the speeches had been out of order the Chairman would have said so.
On two occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) made speeches lasting for two and a half hours or more. On the first of those speeches he was called to order by the Chair on 20 occasions and ordered to resume his seat because he was finding it impossible to remain relevant to the proceedings.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend made a personal attack on me.

Mr. Clarke: I did not make a personal attack. I described what happened in Committee. I shall give way in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East was supported in what he did by the hon. Members for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) and Newham, South. I am entitled to describe what happened as a filibuster, and the sponsors of the Bill are entitled to say that that is why they felt compelled to move a Sittings Motion and use the procedure—which no one can recall being used for many years—of going into all-night sittings on a Private


Member's Bill, which resulted in our proceedings concluding at 4 a.m. on Thursday morning.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has sought to attack my right to express deep anxieties about the Bill and to go into detailed reasons why it should be opposed. If I remained on my feet for two and a half hours at a time, it could only be because the Chair thought that I was in order.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, although her Department is neutral on the Bill, more than once rose to her feet to say that what I was saying was interesting and relevant. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) interrupted me on many occasions and was reproved by the Chair for so doing. He is now asking the House to consider a Bill that seeks to bring unaccompanied children under the age of 14 into public houses, contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of people in the country.

Mr. Clarke: We are beginning to get the flavour of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. I hope that the House is judging the nature of the opposition to the Bill and of those who are supporting the motion to delay proceedings.
I was explaining to the House why I used the word "filibuster", and I blamed hon. Members by name for the delays about which they are complaining. That is the only Standing Committee on which I have ever served in which an hon. Member has been ordered by the Chair to resume his seat after two and a half hours because he was no longer remaining relevant to the business, after repeated points of order.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my hon. Friend tell the House on how many occasions he was reproved by the Chair for interrupting me in the middle of a sentence, and told that he was raising "phoney" points of order?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot recollect that, but I shall refresh my memory by going through the proceedings.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Newham, South,

who spoke for 25 minutes on the dilatory motion.
Great complaint is being made about delays that have been caused by the conduct of this doughty little band who are trying to block this reform measure.
The Bill arose out of the Erroll Committee's Report on liquor licensing, published three years ago, which the House has had plenty of opportunity to consider. The Bill is not a long, comprehensive Bill. The sponsors were modest in what they chose to bring forward from the Erroll Report. The Bill has six clauses and deals with only two substantive points, in Clauses 1 and 2. The House, therefore, does not need a great deal of extra time to consider the issues involved.

Dr. Alan Glyn: My hon. Friend referred to sponsors. How many of the sponsors are here today to discuss the Bill they put forward?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) may rest assured that the sponsors are present.

Sir Bernard Braine: They are not.

Mr. Clarke: If they are not at the moment in their places it is because they have seen that we are debating a dilatory motion. The sponsors are familiar with the way in which our opponents are conducting themselves, and, until we get on to the merits of the Bill, many of those who support it will not come into the Chamber to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East and the hon. Members for Newham, South and Carlisle making their procedural contributions.
When the House is considering how much time it needs before moving on to a consideration of the Bill, it should bear in mind that it contains only two substantial points, which were first before the House on Second Reading.
The first is whether flexible hours should be introduced into our licensing system to enable a licensee who wishes—and only if he wishes—to apply to the licensing justices to vary the permitted hours to hours of his own and his customers' choosing between the limits of 10 a.m. and midnight.
The only other substantial point that the House needs to consider is whether children should be admitted into parts of public houses which are set aside as family rooms. Again, that is only when a licensee wishes to have a family room.
On Second Reading many hon. Members were in and around the House. There was no Division, not because the attendance was small or there was short notice, but because the opponents realised that no work had been done to rally as many hon. Members as possible, and more than 100 hon. Members had indicated their intention to support the measure. To have called a Division on Second Reading would have revealed how extreme and unrepresentative were the opponents.

Mr. Spearing: At least we can agree on exactly what are the measures. I described them in my speech, without dissent from the hon. Gentleman. He referred to family rooms being set aside. That implies a separate structure, but the words in the Bill are these:
any bar set aside as a family room",
and that room would be set aside only until 8 p.m.

Mr. Clarke: We shall debate that when we reach the hon. Gentleman's amendment which has been selected by Mr. Speaker.
Given that the Committee concluded its proceedings at 4 a.m. on Thursday, have great changes been made in the Bill, which the House needs more time to consider? The Bill as it stood at Second Reading and after many Divisions in Committee received approval from a clear majority of the Committee. Very few amendments were made.
The only amendment that the House has needed to consider since the conclusion of the proceedings is the amendment which provided that the Bill should not apply to Sunday. The hon. Member for Carlisle moved that amendment with sincerity and deep Christian conviction. He carried the Committee against us. That amendment was made. Therefore, the Bill does not affect what happens on Sundays, and we all agree that Christmas Day and Good Friday should not be affected by the Bill.
12.30 p.m.
Also, I moved to add a useful new clause that provided for an annual review of the workings of the Bill when it became an Act. I accept that its workings should be kept under proper and expert review by the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East and I, therefore, for the first time today, although I hope not the last, are at one. That provision was added in Committee, and it needs to be considered by the House.
The only other amendment made in Committee was an alteration in the wording of Clause 2, which made it clear that children would not be allowed in any bar in any licensed house. Everyone accepts that most public bars or saloon bars are totally unsuitable places for children under the age of 14, which is the present permitted age. It was made clear that the Bill would merely allow children into bars where family rooms were set aside for them, and the licensing justices would be empowered to grant children's accommodation orders if they thought that there were rooms properly set aside for children as family rooms, and if the justices, in their complete discretion, thought it appropriate that children should be allowed into those parts of public houses.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House, but in using the term "family room" he is implying that children under 14 years of age will be admitted with parents or older people. Will my hon. Friend tell the House that his Bill provides for unaccompanied children to enter such so-called family rooms, and that he resisted every attempt in Committee to incorporate some safeguard against that?

Mr. Clarke: May I ask my hon. Friend to calm down a little? I remember his excitement through the long hours of the night in Committee, but it is now nearly half-past 12 on a Friday. He should restrain his exuberance.
The phrase to which my hon. Friend objects—"familyroom"—which was written into the Bill, was taken from an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East. It was his own description.

Sir Bernard Braine: Answer the question.

Mr. Clarke: I shall answer it in a minute.
Therefore, my hon. Friend was responsible for the phrase "family room" being written into the Bill. It is right to say that the Bill does not refer to the question of unaccompanied children. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) yesterday, in a point of order, said that for the first time he realised that the Bill provided for unaccompanied children to be in family rooms. The Bill has not been amended in that particular since Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman took part in the Second Reading debate, and if he did not realise it then he had not read the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It is worse than I thought.

Mr. Clarke: There is no change. I believe that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was in the Public Gallery in Committee for part of our deliberations. I do not know whether he heard our debate, in which it was explained that although there is no requirement in the Bill that children should be accompanied, it was not because of a desire that children should be on their own in the family rooms. I explained with great care the practical problems that I saw in enforcing a requirement of that kind, and I explained the safeguard in the Bill as drafted, which ensures that children will not be allowed to purchase any drink, alcoholic or nonalcoholic, in the family rooms.
The law will be made stricter in that respect, because at present children of 14 years of age and over can go into public houses and buy goods other than alcoholic liquor. However, because we were concerned that unaccompanied children should not hang about family rooms, we decided in Committee that it would be more practicable to provide that they would not be able to buy anything, thereby giving them no incentive to co in.
That is the full compass of the Bill. Very little amendment was made to the Bill during our protracted Committee proceedings. Therefore, the House has very little that is new to dwell upon

which has arisen since Second Reading. There has been some delay in bringing forward the amendments only because a protracted filibuster was conducted in Committee to try to stop the Bill getting this far. There has been adequate time for this small, civilised, reforming measure of our archaic licensing laws to be considered. It would be wrong for the House to allow yet another procedural device—a dilatory motion—to block further progress on the Bill. If we do not complete our proceedings today, they will be adjourned to another day and the Bill will get in the way of other Private Members' Bills.
The opponents as well as the supporters of the Bill, if they would only conduct the debate with a sense of proportion and get the issues into perspective, should want the House to have a proper debate on the merits of the Bill. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East and the hon. Members for Newham, South and Carlisle attempting once again to persuade me that there is merit in what they have to say. But let us get to that stage. Let us not be blocked by another procedural device. I ask the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): It might be convenient if I were to remind the House that we are discussing simply the question whether further consideration of the Bill should be undertaken. We are not discussing the merits or lack of merits of the amendments.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I do not wish to discuss the merits of the Bill, about which the Government are neutral. They do not actively support or oppose the Bill. I did not vote in any "clause stand part" debate in Committee, and I shall not vote on any new clauses on Report. We are now discussing the procedure for the Bill.
I strongly support the proposer of the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for the following reasons. First, the Bill was not put on the weekly Whip or any amended Whip for any—

Mr. Bob Cryer: What about Private Business?

Dr. Summerskill: Private Business is put on the Whip.
According to our Whip, and, I believe, the Whips of all hon. Members, the House today was to discuss the Divorce (Scotland) Bill followed by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. There was no mention of the Licensing (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill on the Whip, or even on an amended Whip, put out by our respective parties. There was therefore no notice of the Report stage of a very important Bill. I am sure that the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), will agree that it is an important Bill, and I should have thought that he would want to hear the views of many more Members who actively support the Bill.
Presumably the co-sponsors of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe have, like other hon. Members, been taken by surprise by this course of events. Many hon. Members in the North of England will be taken totally by surprise when they wake up this morning, open their post—if it has arrived—and receive this morning's Order Paper informing them of what is to happen today.

Dr. Glyn: Does the hon. Lady agree that the point behind the procedural motion is that the Bill affects the fundamental rights of a large number of people? Deep feelings on both sides of the argument are held about it. I entirely support the hon. Lady. Time is essential, not only to enable us to consider the Bill but to obtain the opinions of the people. This is a fundamental Bill, which affects the lives of the people.

Dr. Summerskill: There are strongly held, nay, passionate views on the Bill. That is why it is important that the House should have had adequate notification about it.
Secondly, there was nothing about the Bill on any Whip or parliamentary paper, or any other document, as far as I can see, until we had this morning's Order Paper—literally a few hours before we were due to start talking about this subject. I gather that not every hon. Member gets the Order Paper on the day, but even if hon. Members did receive the Order Paper in time I doubt whether those in remote parts of the country would have been able to get here by 11 o'clock.
Thirdly, there are 42 starred amendments on the Amendment Paper. That must be an exceptional number. Yet the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, who has now left the Chamber, said very sublimely that there was nothing new to dwell upon.

Mr. Spearing: We should do justice to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He said that only two amendments were agreed in Committee. Factually that is correct. However, he was wrong in suggesting that on Report the House had only to concern itself with amendments made in Committee. I think that on reflection he would agree that on Report we consider amendments made in Committee and discuss new amendments and new clauses.

Dr. Summerskill: Exactly. I agree with that interpretation. As the Government spokesman on the Bill, I have to consider everything that hon. Members say about it. The Government are neutral, but it is essential that we should know how Parliament feels about this matter.
These 42 starred amendments have taken even the Home Office by surprise. I have a battery of talent at my elbow, but my civil servants tell me that many of these amendments were not know to them until 10 o'clock this morning. In other words, they were expected to consider 42 starred amendments between 10 o'clock this morning and the beginning of the Report stage. If my civil servants cannot do that work, hon. Members may be able to do it, but it is asking a great deal of any hon. Member to give consideration to 42 starred amendments at such short notice.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as we all are, for her courtesy and fairness in Committee. Is it not an additional argument that a high proportion of the starred amendments have been selected for debate by the Chair, which means that they are on entirely new points? That being so, the members of the Standing Committee themselves ought to have time to reflect on the new thoughts, new ideas and new fears expressed in those amendments. To expect the House as a whole to understand what is involved in these amendments—I myself received my copy of the


Official Report of the Committee proceedings only this morning—and to proceed on the matter today is a grave discourtesy, apart from anything else. Will the hon. Lady therefore urge most strongly that the Report stage be deferred until a later date?

Dr. Summerskill: That is what I am attempting to do. I think that we have all agreed, except for the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, that we have a great deal of new things to dwell upon. So much for the ill-notification of this very important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who changes his seat very frequently, does not seem to be here at the moment. He tells us "Do not worry. It is all right because the hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned that this would be happening during business questions yesterday." That is not the way that Parliament should announce its business. I say that with respect to my hon. Friend, who does his best.
Quite apart from the very serious situation of ill-notification, we come to the extraordinary procedure that the Bill has already received for a Private Member's Bill. After only one sitting, the Standing Committee sat in the afternoons. As I pointed out in Committee, that was an extraordinary situation. I have made inquiries of the Clerk's Department, and it could find no other situation in which a Private Member's Bill had received afternoon sittings, although I think that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) discovered that there was one about 10 years ago.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The one sitting after which we moved the motion to hold afternoon sittings was entirely dominated by a two-hour harangue by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) on Amendment No. 1. It became clear from that one sitting that we were facing nothing but a torrent of words designed to stop the Bill making progress, and in order to achieve serious debates in which both sides could put their case seriously it was essential to get more time—also, I may add, for my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East to be able to continue to deploy his arguments at the length he wished to do so.

12.45 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not agree with the definition of the speeches of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East as harangues; it is the way he speakes. We all have our different ways. The fact is that procedurally we embarked on an unprecedented situation for a Private Member's Bill. We were suddenly plunged into afternoon sittings, which went into the night, apparently because the hon. Member for Essex, South-East harangued a bit. When the motion to sit in the afternoons was moved, I spoke against it because I felt that it would be an unprecedented way to treat a Private Member's Bill. I felt that the Bill should be treated like any other Private Member's Bill. I saw no good reason for giving it that extraordinary treatment in Committee.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Lady has referred to my haranguing the Committee, and I make no complaint on that score, although I think that it would be unfair to leave it there. Either what I said in Committee was relevant to what we were discussing, or it was not. Either it was correct or it was not. The hon. Lady as spokesman for the Home Office, is the one person in the House who is in a position to say whether the statistics that I quoted about drunkenness and alcohol-related offences, and the facts I laid before the Committee about the history of the licensing laws and the risk of deterioration, where relevant and correct. Whether what I said was delivered in a manner that might be described as haranguing, I make no comment about, but I do not think that the record should be left suggesting that what I said was of no importance. Perhaps the hon. Lady would agree to put the record right in this respect.

Dr. Summerskill: I am talking about procedure and not about the merits of the Bill. It has had extraordinary procedural treatment. In the first afternoon sitting we sat until midnight, and in the second until after 4 o'clock yesterday morning, which seems a very short time ago. The Bill was precipitated through Committee in this extraordinary way, and we are now asked to debate it literally hours after it left Committee, with totally inadequate notice given to the House generally.
The Bill generates very passionate and strongly-held views. The Government want Parliament to decide this important issue, which will affect the social habits of the country and children also, on a free vote in fair and reasonable circumstances. I do not feel that the present circumstances are either fair or reasonable, and I support the motion.

12.49 p.m.

Mr. Beith: I am the first Member to intervene in this debate who was not a member of the Standing Committee. I want to dwell on what the Under-Secretary has said, that the House should discuss this matter in fair and reasonable circumstances.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that he wanted a fair and orderly debate. There are two difficulties. First, the Amendment paper was available to us only somewhat late this morning. Many amendments have been tabled. It is difficult enough for hon. Members to table amendments at such short notice, because there is so little time for them to consider adequately what is involved and to consult their colleagues. From the publication of the Notice Paper this morning until now is far too little time in which to consult outside bodies on the amendments tabled in the names of other hon. Members and to discuss and consider them. It is a task beyond the capacity of any human being.
There are a number of amendments of substance about which I have no full knowledge. I have no full knowledge, for example, of the amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. John Lee: Is not the hon. Member exaggerating? Does he not remember the terrorism measure of the November before last? Does he not remember that we were discussing amendments on the Floor before the Chair had finally made its selection from the completed list? I am sure that both sponsors and antagonists of the Bill would regard that as a far graver and more important Bill than this one. Is not the hon. Member tending to spoil his argument by exaggeration?

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I remember those proceedings vividly. I think that the hon. Member and I discussed our misgivings about a situation in which amendments could be treated in that way. But let no one pretend that the existence of a very considerable violent terrorist threat to the people of this country can be remotely compared to one in which there is no threat at all other than that presented by the Bill. There is no threat against which the Bill is a safeguard. It is the Bill itself which can be conceived as a threat by those who oppose it.
The notion that there is a threat to children in remaining out of public houses, or a threat to the people of this country in the licensing laws remaining as they are, is preposterous. To use in this context the dangerously truncated procedures that were used in relation to terrorism, would be even more inappropriate than the procedure we are now embarked upon. It is not possible for us to consider the amendments with care or with scrupulousness.
There are amendments before us in the name of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). He has his own special knowledge and understanding of the matters we are discussing today, and his own relationship to them. I had no idea what his amendments would be. He is not one of the doughty band of opponents of the Bill in Standing Committee. He has his own distinctly independent voice, and I hope that he will appear in due course if we have to go on to deal with this matter. His views certainly differ from those of the sponsors and from my own views, and they need to be considered with due care.
There are very serious difficulties, therefore, in seeking to give proper consideration to the amendments that have been tabled. I have not grasped the significance of some of the amendments on the Notice Paper, and I would need to consult others outside the House before I could have any real understanding of their implications. There are licences to consult and managers of licensed houses, as well as users of public houses—the variety of persons concerned is enormous—not to mention those concerned with the welfare of the children likely to be affected by the Bill.
There is a second and equally important difficulty. Mr. Speaker had a very difficult task in sorting out a selection of amendments this morning at such very short notice. He must have had to do it in a very short time. We are all, I am sure, indebted to the Clerk to the Committee for advising the Committee and for advising Mr. Speaker. The normal state of affairs in this House is that Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments is available to us by 12 o'clock on the day in question, or a little later. If a situation arises in which a particular amendment is felt to be one which ought to be discussed and was not covered in the Committee proceedings, it is acknowledged that hon. Members can go to Mr. Speaker and discuss with him whether he might make a supplementary selection and add it to those he has already put on his list. That is a procedure in which many hon. Members have taken part.

Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that it is also a traditional procedure for an amendment to be put down and circulated among hon. Members in order to gain support, and that this is another factor which Mr. Speaker can take into consideration when making his selection? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that sort of procedure was impossible in the time available?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an important point. I recall that, as I dashed through the corridors last night wondering whether the proceedings on the EEC documents would last a moment longer, I had no time in which to seek in the Library or in the Tea Room for any other hon. Members who I knew would be concerned and ready to give their support in this matter, and whose names would have influenced Mr. Speaker in making his choice of amendments.
I sought to follow the proper procedure even under the truncated conditions that we face today. When I received Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments at one minute past 11 o'clock, I went to his office to find out how I could make representations in relation to one particular amendment. I was told that Mr. Speaker had left the premises in order to attend divine service. His obligations of long standing required him to be out of the House at this time. But, as I

was informed by Mr. Speaker's office, only Mr. Speaker himself can modify or add to his selection of amendments. It cannot be done by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or by any other of your colleagues. This meant that it was no longer possible for any representations to have any effect at all.
This caused me particular difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because one of the amendments not selected was designed to protect the position of managers of licensed houses owned by breweries who might be the subject of victimisation or pressure if they sought to argue against or oppose any extension of hours being sought in relation to their public houses. They would be in no position to resist pressure from the brewery.
I therefore tabled an amendment to enable the representative body of managers of licensed houses to make representations on the general interests of managers at any hearing of the justices on this matter. It is, indeed, a matter of very great importance to people outside the House. That amendment has, in Mr. Speaker's discretion, not been selected. In saying this, I recognise how carefully Mr. Speaker considers representations which are made when an amendment has not been selected. I am bound to ask the House to bear very much in mind, in considering the motion, that we were simply not able to embark on this process at all. Mr. Speaker has not had the opportunity to consider representations.
The amendments have only just been placed before us. There has been insufficient time in which to give them proper consideration, and if circumstances had been different there would have been an opportunity to make representations to Mr. Speaker in the manner I have indicated. This is not the way in which to have an orderly and fair debate on a measure which, if passed in its present form, would have the most disastrous consequences for children and adults alike.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I support the motion so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of the Bill —you would rule me out of order if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker—which eventually will be discussed by the House.
I was a member of the Standing Committee, and I remind the House that the motion for the extension of sittings was moved at the second sitting. Normally, even Governments allow a reasonable period of time to elapse before they introduce a sittings motion, but that sittings motion was moved, as I have said, at our second sitting. The ploy used by the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), was that his hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) had spoken too long. I understand that the object of having a Committee is that a Bill may be sifted, sorted out and amended. I was unable to move the amendments standing in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South by reason of the fact that the closure was moved because the hon. Member for Essex, South-East had spoken too long.
The plain fact is that the sponsors of the Bill wanted to get it through with very little discussion upon it. They wanted to thwart the wishes of Parliament and circumvent the procedures under which we operate.
1.0 p.m.
We have heard this morning about the three doughty opponents of the Bill. On behalf of my two colleagues, I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe for what he said. At the same time, I might point out to hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee that the sponsors of the Bill worked on a rota system, with the result that during most of our proceedings some were in and some were out of the Committee Room. What is more, with the exception of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, none of the Bill's sponsors made any contribution to our debates other than to intervene in the speeches of those of us who opposed the Bill. In my view, those are matters which should be taken into consideration.
I support this motion. The Committee concluded its proceedings at 4 o'clock yesterday morning. When I came back to the House a little later yesterday morning, I obtained a copy of the full Order Paper which showed at that time that today's business was to be the Report stage of the Bill to reform Scottish divorce law followed by the Report stage of

the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. There was not a word about this Bill. Fortunately, having been a member of the Standing Committee, I anticipated what was to happen, and I was able to cancel my appointments in my constituency for today in order to be here.
Without going into the merits of the Bill, the important matter to bear in mind is that if the Bill becomes law it will have a very serious effect upon Wales. Probably many Welsh Members are ignorant of this fact—I say that in no derogative way—and many of them will have gone off to their constituencies not knowing that the Bill was to be discussed in the House today. That could have a very serious effect upon their beloved country. That, in my opinion, is another reason why this House should guard very jealously the rights of Members and give every Member the opportunity to be here when we deal with the Report stage of this Bill. I venture to assume that probably three-quarters of hon. Members who represent constituencies outside London left Westminster yesterday with no knowledge that this measure was coming before the House today and that many of them—some in favour of the Bill and others against it—would have liked to be here to put forward their points of view.
Another matter for consideration is that those of us who have been described as doughty champions in their opposition to the Bill we appreciate that description—have been consulting a number of outside organisations which in one way or another will be affected if the Bill ever becomes law. As I say, we concluded our proceedings in Committee at 4 o'clock yesterday morning. We three doughty champions have had numerous consultations, for example with trade unions, some of which have some scepticism about the merits of the Bill. One trade union which I have in mind is affiliated to the TUC and is therefore a bona fide trade union.
When we finished our deliberations at 4 o'clock yesterday morning, it was virtually impossible for us to have any contact with that trade union because its leaders had long-standing engagements and, even with the best will in the world, could not meet us to discuss the new situation which had arisen.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The only changes made in the Standing Committee were as a result of amendments suggested or supported by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis). There cannot be any new situation that he wants to discuss with trade unionists. The only changes made were changes that he wanted.

Mr. Lewis: Changes were made, but the hon. Member for Rushcliffe did not support those changes. He voted against them.

Mr. Spearing: I addressed myself to this point when my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) was out of the Chamber. Mr. Speaker has selected 18 amendments and four new clauses for debate, if we proceed. The point is that these are amendments which are wanted by hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee. Does not my hon. Friend agree that a Report stage is not to discuss simply the changes made in Committee but other changes which other hon. Members might want to make if they knew that the Bill was to be discussed today and if they were minded to table amendments?

Mr. Lewis: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is spot on. Having consulted those trade unions earlier, I feel that it is our moral duty to consult them still further now that the Bill has been amended.

Mr. Beith: I think that the union which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) has in mind is the National Association of Licensed House Managers. I contacted its national president last night. He had left London unaware that this Bill was to be discussed today. I telephoned him at 11 o'clock last night when he was completing his duties in the house which he manages. He was horrified that this had happened and he was extremely concerned when I told him that I could not present him with a print of the Bill or copies of the amendments that we were to discuss.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) also bear in mind that quite late in our proceedings in Committee I received the strongest possible representations from all the Christian Churches, with the exception of the Church of England, though I have no doubt that the Church of England will

wish to express a view on the Bill? All the Churches are strongly opposed to the proposals in the Bill. They are very surprised at the way in which Parliament is appearing to rush through its consideration of this Report stage.

Mr. Lewis: I agree with both those observations. In fact, I was just about to come to the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I was saying that we had consulted the trade unons. But we also consulted the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches. I agree that the two are very strange bedfellows. However, on the merits of the Bill, both the National Association of Licensed House Managers and the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches are at one. There is nothing wrong about that, of course. On this issue I go along with the views of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, who is in a different political party. That is all part of our democratic life. I sometimes think that Parliament is at its best when we discuss non-political matters.
We did not have any opportunity yesterday to discuss the situation with the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches, a body which should be consulted. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East has just reminded us about the Church of England. I hope that every hon. Member, assuming that he has not already done so, will read the speech made by the Archbishop of Canterbury in another place on Wednesday. It is true that he did not draw attention specifically to this matter. But, reading between the lines, in my opinion he made certain observations which could affect this Bill one way or the other.
There is another body of opinion which I wanted to consult. A number of the Bill's sponsors are Co-operative Members. I have spent a lifetime in the co-operative movement. I was president of a co-operative society, and it is probable that I know more about its workings than my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who is himself a Co-operative-sponsored Member. I question the role that the co-operative movement is playing in this, bearing in mind that so many Co-operative Members are supporting the Bill. As an active co-operator, I should like to have consulted a number of my friends


in the co-operative movement, the Co-operative Wholesale Society and so on—[Interruption.] All that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East can do is to make interjections—

Mr. Mike Thomas: rose—

Mr. Lewis: No. I shall not give way to my hon. Friend on this point. The only thing he has done is to make interjections time and time again. When the question of the Churches was raised, he simply laughed.

Mr. Mike Thomas: rose—

Mr. Lewis: All right, I will give way to him out of Christian charity.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Also in a Christian spirit, let me say first of all that I would have loved to make an intervention during the course of the Committee stage, but the time allowed was pre-empted by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) and his collaborators. The co-operative movement has nothing whatever to do with the Bill; there is no dark hand behind it. Also, let me assure my hon. Friend that I have never taken anything but the most serious view of representations by the Churches. However, no such representations have been made to me or to the other sponsors of the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the first point he raises is quite untrue. He had the opportunity to speak in Committee if he had wanted to do so, but he did not make use of that opportunity. It is not right for him to come down here now and say that he wanted to speak but he did not have an opportunity. The only person who spoke on the first amendment was the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and he made what I regard as an excellent speech. If the hon. Gentleman had not been so quick to move the closure motion and if he had been anxious to speak, he could have spoken. He now has the opportunity to speak on Report stage rather than sit there and make interjections.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) is castigating his supporters for not speaking, but already he and his tiny fanatic band have taken one and a half hours in

telling us why they do not want to speak on the Bill. That style of opposition, which will be noted outside this House, is stopping us from getting on with the merits of the Bill. This is a frantic filibuster.

Mr. Lewis: Thank God there are still a number of fanatics in this House! Of course, I can understand the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe in wanting to rush the Bill through, but that is not what his constituents want. I live less than 20 miles from his constituency and I have consulted a lot of them about the Bill.
Of course we are fanatics. I will gladly be labelled a fanatic if I can defeat this measure. I am glad that we have introduced a little liveliness into our proceedings. I think that the Member for Rushcliffe made an unwarranted attack on his hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East. If there was any one person who kept calm throughout the proceedings it was the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, and what a marvellous speech he made.
I do not want to be accused of filibustering, and I say that with the best Christian charity I can muster. But I do argue here and now that from 4 o'clock yesterday morning until this morning we have not had the opportunity to consult the various organisations and persons who we feel should be consulted on this measure. I hope that the membership of the House will be jealous of its rights and will insist that this Bill receives adequate discussion on another occasion.

1.15 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: I rise to support the motion so ably moved by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I am as anxious as anyone to discuss the Bill in the greatest possible detail. I say in all modesty that I doubt whether anyone who read the official account of what was said in Standing Committee upstairs would accuse me of filibustering, and not putting before the Committee detailed reasons why this wretched, permissive little measure, which seeks to reverse the trends in the licensing law and child protection law in this country, should not go through. No one could fail to recognise that I was


addressing myself seriously to the measure on all occasions.
I am particularly anxious to proceed with the discussion on entirely new points. I have a number of amendments down, and in a way I am torn between supporting the motion and wishing to get to grips with the sponsors on the subject of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) was absolutely right in saying that this Bill concerns a great many people. It concerns licensees to begin with. Should it become law, licensees may be forced by the pressures of their competitive trade to apply for orders under Clause 1 for longer drinking hours, with all the problems, difficulties, and extra responsibilities that that will cause them—or they may have to seek child accommodation orders under Clause 2, which permits—believe it or not—children under 14 to enter bars unaccompanied.
I take this opportunity to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who implied that because I had been responsible for using the term "family room" I was in some way responsible for his proposal for children entering bars unaccompanied. What I was pointing out was that he had turned down every amendment that afforded adequate protection for children under 14.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is launching into a speech on the merits of part of the Bill. He is not addressing himself to the question of why the proceedings should be adjourned. Would you rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he should not talk about the Bill or be drawn on the merits of one part of one clause, which he will not allow us to get on with and debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said precisely that earlier. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall it.

Sir Bernard Braine: The House has just been given an example of what the minority had to put up with in Standing Committee Whenever one opened an argument my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe rose to tell the Chair how to conduct the Committee. More than once he was reproved by the Chair for doing so. I am well aware that we are not now

discussing the merits—or should I say demerits?—of the Bill. As far as I am concerned it has no merits at all. I do not need my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, who has not been in this House very long, to tell me the rules of parliamentary procedure. We are concerned with the question whether we should proceed today. I am anxious to get on with discussions on New Clause 1, as I have new points to put to the House.
Points were made by the hon. Member for Newham, South and the Under-Secretary of State which were completely convincing as to why we should not proceed with the Bill today. It is not a matter merely of the present procedure being a grave inconvenience to hon. Members, many of whom will not have seen the Order Paper yet, and many of whom were totally unaware that this matter would be coming on today. It is not merely a matter of inconvenience. It raises a point of important principle. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the report of the Renton Committee, which was appointed by the Lord President and was chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) on the subject of the preparation of legislation, and to one particularly important passage in that report. At paragraph 18.34 the report states that
On some occasions there is too little time between the various stages of a Bill to permit Members of Parliament, Peers and those whom they consult to give adequate consideration to the drafting of the proposed legislation and the framing of amendments. This problem is especially acute between the end of the committee stage and the start of the report stage, especially on Bills of substantial length and complexity. No doubt the Parliamentary draftsmen also find themselves at a disadvantage when there is insufficient time between stages.
It goes on to recommend that
unless there is a need for special urgency, there should always be at least—

(a) two week-ends between the first publication of a Bill and the debate on second reading in the first House;
(b) fourteen days between second reading and the start of the committee stage;
(c) on all Bills of considerable length or complexity, fourteen days between the publication of the Bill as amended in committee or standing committee and the start of the report stage."


It may be argued that this is not a long Bill, but it is certainly a very complex Bill, and one that I do not regard


as suitable to be introduced into the House by a private Member. Licensing law is very complex, and should be the subject of carefully prepared Government legislation.

Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Member will, of course, know that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and I were encouraged in the introduction of this Bill by the Home Secretary, and that assistance has been offered in drafting it to avoid the sort of pitfalls to which he has referred.

Dr. Summerskill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the Home Secretary's name has been taken in vain, and since he is not here, I should explain that my right hon. Friend did not encourage my hon. Friend to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Yes he did.

Dr. Summerskill: He said that the Government would neither support it nor oppose it, but that we would be prepared to give assistance with the technical aspects of the drafting.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I was encouraged.

Sir Bernard Braine: We have just had the most astonishing revelation. I do not think that the Under-Secretary can allow the matter to stand there. This is the first time that Parliament has been told that the Home Office gave assistance to my hon. Friend in preparing technical points and that the Home Secretary gave—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: May I finish the sentence? The House will see what I have had to put up with in Committee—interruptions in the middle of sentences, and the anticipation of a thought before it had even been expressed. The House has just learned of a most important fact, if it be a fact. I see that the Under-Secretary has gone to the Box to ascertain the truth from her advisers.
As I understand it, the Government's Advisory Committee on Alcoholism has strongly advised against the Bill and the Department of Health and Social Security is deeply concerned about the public health aspects of the Bill. Are we now to be told that the Home Secretary has

been giving encouragement to this measure? If so, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) has let the cat out of the bag.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall give way to the Under-Secretary, because she is entitled to explain whether the Government support the measure.

Dr. Summerskill: I thought that I had just explained the Government's position. The Government neither actively support nor oppose the Bill. I said that on Second Reading. There was a free vote of the House on that occasion. That is our position. I have repeated that over and over again.

Sir Bernard Braine: Since the Under-Secretary has emphasised that the Home Secretary was anxious to test the strength of opinion, the hon. Lady should confirm my impression that, as the Bill got a Second Reading in a House of only 15 Members, it is therefore even more important for the Government that there should be a true test of opinion first of Members of Parliament and then of the public itself, and that there should be full time for us to consider the amendments that are put down.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Member agree that the germane points in the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) are perhaps not those that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing? My hon. Friend said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had given encouragement, and that is a matter between my hon. Friend and the Home Secretary. He also said, however, that the Department had assisted with the technical drafting. If that is so, the results in the Bill do not add lustre to whatever reputation the Home Office has in these matters.

Sir Bernard Braine: With that unerring skill which always wins my admiration the hon. Gentleman has, not for the first time, put his finger on the precise point. If the Home Office has helped in the technical drafting of the Bill, all I can say is that the sooner the Home Secretary's advisers are changed—and Parliament can express a strong view on that—the better.
The drafting makes for provisions that are opposed by every responsible police officer in the country. There are, as I shall show later, serious implications for the police service. Those provisions impose burdens upon licensees, the vast majority of whom do not want them. They interfere with child protection law, because, for the first time since the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 it permits children under the age of 14 to go unaccompanied into licensed bars. In view of what has been revealed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, the sooner we have the fullest debate on this wretched permissive measure, the better. The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for letting the cat out of the bag.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend is getting very excited on this point—and, as is often the case, on a total misunderstanding of what has been said. Before he gets too hot and bothered I should make it clear that the Bill is not drafted by the Home Office. The advice that I had in drafting and preparation was not from the Home Office. The Bill was drafted by me and my fellow sponsors with some other advice of a legal kind. I approached the Home Secretary and asked whether I could have the advice and comments of his Department on the technical aspects. The Home Office therefore was giving its comments on the drafting, not on the merits. The Home Office has never given me any opinion, one way or the other, on the merits. All I got, as is usually the case with Private Member's Bills, were comments from the Department and perhaps those comments of the draftsmen, on the text.
As a practising lawyer, such was my approach to the drafting that I tended to prefer the way I had drafted it to the way the parliamentary draftsmen had put it, but that is another matter. My hon. Friend can rest at ease. He is wrong if he believes that the Home Office supported my Bill or expressed any views on the merits of it. He is getting excited about a non-issue.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend must not bite the hand that has fed him, even if it has fed him somewhat inadequately. He should get together with his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, because between the

two of them they have given the House a totally contradictory account of what contact was made with the Home Office. I shall not pursue the matter further, because I am very anxious to get on with the Bill, if that be the will of the House.
We have been told this morning that the sponsors of the Bill have received technical advice from the Home Office about the drafting. The Bill would be so damaging in its effect, if it were ever implemented, that the Home Office is clearly treading on very dangerous ground. That is an added reason for the House having more time to consider a matter that should never have been the subject of a Private Member's Bill but should have been taken under the Government's wing if it were thought that there was a demand for it. As we repeatedly showed in Committee, there was no widespread demand from the public or from licensees.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Spearing: On this point I must refrain from agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. A private Member has the right to introduce any Private Member's Bill he wishes, whatever others may feel, although I agree that this Bill may have been ill-advised.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am not in conflict with my hon. Friend. Every Member has the right to introduce a Bill. I was disputing the apparent encouragement given to my hon. Friend in introducing the Bill, according to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. Thank God for the honesty of my hon. Friends, who, in speaking up as they have done, have alerted Parliament and the public to the fact that we were in the process of letting slide through a Bill that would permit children under the age of 14—[Interruption.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] The hon. Gentleman referred to the Bill in his speech, and I am in order in referring to it. I do not need the hon. Gentleman's assistance. He is assuming, with his usual arrogant air, the responsibilities of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Chair will decide who is and who is not in order. I think that the children under 14 have all gone for a drink.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am always grateful for your wise guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the speeches of those of us who have a genuine concern about these provisions about children, it has been a frequent, poverty-stricken device of the supporters of the Bill to interrupt, in the middle of a sentence, with cries of "Order", in attempts to assume the responsibilities of the Chair. I was merely objecting to that.
The very important recommendation of the Renton Committee was duly noted by the Government. I understand that there has never been any dissenting voice. That Committee, presided over by one of our most distinguished Members, did a most useful service to Parliament. We, too, shall be doing a useful service to Parliament today if we recognise the validity of that Committee's argument and accept in spirit its recommendation about the intervals between the different stages of a Bill's consideration.
For these reasons, I hope that the House will accept the motion.

Mr. Cryer: I am not a fanatic but a parliamentary moderate who is anxious to see that the due processes of Parliament are observed and that hon. Members, elected to office after a very important procedure, have a full and proper opportunity to consider every item of legislation, including Private Members' Bills.
One of the matters concerning me particularly is the recent argument between the Government and the Opposition, which has led to a complete breakdown in pairing arrangements. This is unfortunate or is of advantage to the Government Benches, depending upon which view one takes of the voting results. The pairing system is a well-known system enabling hon. Members to leave the House to fulfil appointments. Over the past few weeks hon. Members have been kept here night after night—particularly Government Members, but also Opposition Members—because there has been no scientific approach to the voting. As a result, many hon. Members have had appointments piling up, and the only day on which they can be fulfilled is a Friday. We are paid to be here on a Friday as well as the rest of the week, but in these special circumstances many hon. Members are having the greatest

difficulty in fulfilling urgent and important appointments.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is there not a case for moving to adjourn consideration of the Bill and every one that follows it?

Mr. Cryer: I shall come to that. One of the important points about this Bill is that it is very controversial. Much private Members' legislation is of the nuts-and-bolts variety. Private Members have the right to introduce what legislation they like, but if they introduce controversial legislation they must expect the House to give it long, hard scrutiny. Much private Members' legislation is a useful dotting of the i's and crossing of the t's. I have put forward several such measures, including one reducing the lifting of heavy weights, a modest, minor Bill which could have gone through, if it had been given Government support, with everybody's approval. But the Bill we are now discussing is highly controversial.
Therefore, time should be given to enable hon. Members to have proper notification. There is no question of whipping, but the fact is that information could have gone out with the party Whips. It is a custom of both parties that when private Members wish to draw particular attention to an item of legislation they can ask the Whips' Office for a note to that effect to be circulated with the Whip. Nothing like that could be done on this occasion because of the rapidity of the procedure. I am not saying that the procedure was irregular, but it was too hasty.

Mr. Spearing: I do not detract from what my hon. Friend says, but the basic criteria here are the official notifications in the Journal and Order Book of the House. It would be wrong to rely on the method my hon. Friend suggested, because the Whips are not public documents.

Mr. Cryer: That is absolutely true. Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments was not known until 11 o'clock this morning, so that the ordinary machinery of the House was not available in due time for the proper consideration. My earlier point about hon. Members having to go away on Fridays in these special circumstances has particular relevance to that.
Some people might say that the proponents of the Bill have carried out some


sharp practice. They are in order in putting it down on the Order Paper for today, but only yesterday, when the matter was discussed on a point of order, I invited Mr. Speaker to deprecate the practice. He did not choose to do so.
I should like to point out a parallel situation in which a Member can be in order and yet still have his actions deprecated by Mr. Speaker. The business of the House may fold up early. A Member may put down his name for an additional Adjournment debate, but it may not be possible to find a Minister.
There is nothing to stop any hon. Member putting forward his point of view, even though the Minister is not there to reply. In such circumstances Mr. Speaker may deprecate the situation, but he cannot halt the proceedings. In these circumstances we appear to have a legislative parallel. We can follow procedure, but because of the haste involved that situation is to be deprecated. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is assiduous in these matters, particularly on EEC subjects, and he speaks on them with great effectiveness. I hope that the Chair will consider this matter in due course.
I wish to take up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis). If the Home Office is given technical guidance, I should have thought that when considering such an important matter as that which is before us we should by now have had a consultative document. That is the usual way by which the House proceeds. This Bill will bring about enormous changes. On other occasions—for example, when dealing with the legislation on health and safety at work and also the topic of tied cottages, legislation that will affect far fewer people than will this Bill—consultative documents were published and opinions were invited In this case, a consultative document would have alerted bodies such as USDAW and the licensed victuallers, who could have put forward their points of view.

Mr. Mike Thomas: My hon. Friend will be aware that more than two years ago the Erroll Committee's report was published. It was debated in the other place, and I introduced a Bill in March 1975 on the lines of the present Bill. That Bill was supported by a majority of

nearly four to one. The present Bill has been published for a matter of several months. Therefore, my hon. Friend cannot say that people are not aware of its provisions.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, but I must point out that there is a difference between a fairly obscure Private Member's Bill on an obscure subject and a public measure accompanied by a consultative document. A consultative document is often given the benefit of a Press conference to which the Press as a whole gives prominence. Therefore, people are given an opportunity to learn of a Bill's provisions, quite apart from publication of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend accept that some hon. Members would not accept the distinction between a large-scale Government Bill and any Public Bill? A Public Bill in the House of Commons should be given prominence by the media irrespective of who introduces it, whether it be a Minister or a private Member. To that extent I have sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas). Does my hon. Friend agree that a cursory reading of the Bill, even by people in the trade, would not give the true meaning and implications behind the Bill? Is that not a reason why the media have not got on to this measure and, indeed, why certain people have been given the wrong impression of its provisions?

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that useful intervention. Although he is right to say that there should be no differentiation in the treatment of one Bill as compared with another, he must realise that the Press tends to differentiate between one measure and another, unless they are of a glaringly controversial nature. We do not have a Press which can immediately pick out Bills which are controversial but which do not appear to be so on the surface. That is an essential distinction. If a Bill were entitled the Public Houses (Rape) Bill it would immediately be a matter for attention, but because this Bill relates simply to licensed premises and to alterations in licensing hours it appears at first sight to be a fairly obscure measure,


although we know that once one burrows into its clauses they throw up some controversial matters.
It is a matter for regret that although there are many people in Parliament, such as the Lobby correspondents, who do a splendid job, they are often extremely busy people, and it is only when matters of a specialist parliamentary nature arise that a journalist tends to delve into its background. After all, there is a great deal of material for them to wade through. There are many Bills to examine and, not unreasonably, a journalist who examines a list of Bills will tend to pick up Government measures because they deal with more outstanding and important matters. I do not blame correspondents for making that judgment about Private Members' legislation, because they have to make a choice. The fact is that because the present Bill is controversial it is being debated with more intensity than is usual with Private Members' legislation.
The point is that there has been scant opportunity for the same proper consultative procedures to be undertaken as are followed on Government Bills. It is important to pursue that matter.
I believe that the House should not at this stage consider this legislation, because we already have an investigation being conducted by a sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on Alcoholism, a body set up to advise the Department of Health and Social Security. The main committee issued a Press report in February of this year which said:
The Advisory Committee on Alcoholism, set up in March 1975 to advise Health Ministers, has carefully considered the Erroll Committee's proposals to liberalise the licensing laws, and believes that such measures would greatly increase the scale of alcoholism and its related problems—drunken driving, psychiatric illness, marital and social breakdown. At a time when alcoholic hospital admissions are increasing by 10 per cent. each year and the health and social services are already overburdened, the Committee opposes any relaxation in the laws and wishes its views to be widely known and taken into account.
That committee was of the view that there should be widespread information.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am Chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism. I assure him that that is not the only

report which has warned in recent weeks and months against the proposals in the Bill. We must also take into account the fact that the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage has specifically drawn the attention of Parliament to increasing drunkenness and the contribution it makes to marital unhappiness and the ill-treatment of wives and children. These matters, taken together, are sufficient reason for the House to be most cautious about proceeding helter-skelter with this wretched little measure.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I must point out that, according to the record in the Library, the Sub-Committee on Services for Alcoholics—the subcommittee of the main Advisory Committee on Alcoholism—is not expected to report until the end of 1976. I do not want to go into the merits of the Bill, but it is clearly a possibility which cannot be denied that the Bill might have the effect of increasing the level of alcoholism. There is little point in introducing that sort of legislation if the committee considering services for alcoholics is not due to report until the end of the year. It would seem to be rushing things.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a committee considered the licensing laws for no less than 18 months and produced detailed findings which were the result of close examination of many witnesses? Does he realise that those findings were dismissed out of hand by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), Chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism, who said that the whole thing was a waste of time? What purpose would it serve if we were to depend on the findings of another committee which produced similar recommendations?

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. I am sorry that he has not been here during the whole of the debate but I recognise that he probably had important engagements in the courts this morning. I do not assume that the report of every committee will be worthless. If we are to make a balanced and sensible judgment, we have to take account of as full a range of information and comment


as we can. I would not exclude the Erroll Report from any consideration of the licensing position. Nor would I exclude the report by the Advisory Committee on Alcoholism. We have to take account of all the material.
My point, which the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has heavily underlined, is that the House is not in a position to make that assessment in relation to this legislation, particularly when further information is due to come to light. It is not only the report of the Advisory Committee on Alcoholism that is germane to this matter. We have had the Blennerhassett Report on the drink and driving laws. That is a most useful report. From the general comments made by the Minister for Transport it would appear that legislation will be forthcoming as a result of it. I hope that there is such legislation, because there is no doubt that there is an enormous toll in death and injury as a result of people driving when unfit to do so because of drink.
It would be foolish in the extreme to enact legislation liberalising the licensing laws if there is to be legislation which will make it a much more onerous proposition for those who wish to drive after having taken alcohol. That is a practice which is to be condemned. It would almost be like increasing the child allowances and giving consideration to introducing a child benefit scheme which involved taking away child allowances. That is precisely what has happened in another area. The Chancellor announced in his Budget that the child allowances were to be increased—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very near to being out of order. What he is now speaking about has nothing to do with the debate.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful, as always, for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is always extremely useful. I was drawing a good parallel. The main point of my argument is that there is in the background a considerable amount of evidence of consideration being given to matters which affect the licensing laws. The Minister for Transport is considering the introduction of legislation to tighten up the laws governing drinking and driving. Because this area is so controversial, it should be a matter for

Government consideration and for enacting legislation which will cover the whole spectrum. This House would not improve its reputation if on the one hand it enacted legislation to relax the licensing laws and if two or three months hence it considered legislation tightening those laws.
We in this House cannot exist without having regard to what the Government are doing or proposing by way of legislation. I realise that there are those who are concerned with this legislation and who want to see it go through the House so as to be able to say "This is my bit of legislation which I helped to get through". Nevertheless, the best thing we can do is to adjourn this debate so that a sensible and a balanced assessment can be made at some stage in the future.
If this legislation did, by some chance, pass through the House today—and the chances of that are diminishing minute by minute—a lot of people outside would want to know what sort of procedure it was that allowed that legislation to be rushed through in such a short space of time. They would say that those Members of Parliament who were not prepared to scrutinise this legislation had failed in their responsibilities.
We know that Members of Parliament are in the unhappy position of not having been provided with the information. The Bill has been placed on the Order Paper in such a way that hon. Members cannot get the information. Because we cannot be certain that every one of the 635 Members of Parliament has had the opportunity properly to be notified of this controversial legislation, we cannot allow it to slide through the House. There is no certainty that every hon. Member has had proper and due notice of the fact that the Bill is on the Order Paper. Certainly they have had no notice of the amendments. The wisest course would be for the House to adjourn the debate and to move on to discuss other business which has been properly notified to hon. Members who have been able to decide whether to attend for it.

2.0 p.m.

Dr. Glyn: It is not often that I find myself in so much agreement with the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). The points that he made in favour of adjourning this debate were most relevant. I was particularly grateful to the


Under-Secretary for giving way and for her favourable view of this adjournment motion. The most cogent of the arguments in favour of the motion is that concerning the time factor. Members must be in a position to know the facts before making a judgment. In this case there is no question that the facts were not available until an hour which was too late.
The Renton Report, at page 132, makes it clear that 14 days should elapse between the completion of the Committee stage and the commencement of the Report stage of a controversial or complicated Bill. I should make it clear that I am speaking neither for nor against the Bill; I am speaking purely from the point of view of the procedure of this House. That procedure is not only important to us now and in the future; the conclusions to which we might come if we were to proceed with the Bill now could be the subject of severe criticism in the country. People might say that this Bill was considered at a time when most of the 650 Members were, quite properly, in their constituencies, and unaware that this business was on the Order Paper.
I came to the House this morning from my constituency and found the notice stating that this business was to be considered today. Other hon. Members whose constituencies are further away would not necessarily be so aware. Unless these documents are posted at a very early date, they do not reach Members. It is only a few fortunate Members like myself, who live close to the House, who receive them quickly.
If we do not adjourn this debate we may be discussing a Bill that, unimportant as it may look on the Order Paper, could represent a tremendous change in the pattern of our lives. Two matters that I regard as relevant are the flexibility of opening hours and the position in respect of children being admitted to public houses.
Some people may take the view that children should be excluded altogether from public houses. Others may take the view that they should be allowed in certain parts of the premises. This is one of those Bills which, as is said on page 132 of the Renton Report, to which we

all owe a debt, although apparently unimportant in size, nevertheless in terms of its contents is very important indeed.
The time factor is particularly important, because I think that sufficient time should be provided to enable the House and the country to consider carefully the effects of the Bill. In my view, there is not sufficient time. This is a conclusion to which one must come, whether one considers the Renton Report or whether one uses one's common sense. We have the valuable contribution of the Honorary Recorder of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Mr. Blennerhassett, and there are contributions from other bodies sitting at the moment, such the Advisory Committee on Alcoholism. I am not suggesting that we should wait for every report to be produced, but when we are dealing with such an important matter as this I feel that it might be better taken over by the Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) wants to get this measure through in good faith. Who does not want to get a Private Member's Bill through the House, with the attendant feeling of success and achievement? My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) laughs, because I did not get my Private Member's Bill through. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) did.

Mr. Ron Lewis: No, I did not.

Dr. Glyn: I hope that the Government will consider this point. When the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State intervened earlier, as is customary in debates of this nature, she indicated that the Government might take up this Bill and incorporate it in more comprehensive legislation. I am sure that the sponsor would have no objection to that.

Mr. Lee: I understand the hon. Gentleman's reasoning, but is not the difficulty this: the Home Office has adopted the singular but not unprecedentedly undignified posture of neutrality and has come down on both sides of the fence, so that neither the sponsor nor the opponents can be sure whether the Government would incorporate this Bill in their own legislation?

Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has given me the


time I required to enable me to address myself to the hon. Lady, who has now returned to the Chamber. When she intervened she expressed the Government's view of neutrality on the Bill. At the same time, I thought she indicated that she agreed that it would not be advisable to debate the Bill today, although she had a favourable attitude to the idea of giving time for this matter to be considered on another occasion, in view of the unprecedented circumstances in which this measure has been brought before us.

Dr. Summerskill: In case there is any misunderstanding of what I said, I should like to make it clear that I had no intention of proposing that Government time should be given to further proceedings on this Bill.

Dr. Glyn: With respect to the hon. Lady, I did not put it quite like that. What I suggested was that although the hon. Lady made it clear that the Government, as is frequently the case, were neutral in their attitude, nevertheless she realised the importance of this subject and the deep feelings felt throughout the country. In that case, the result must only be that the Government, being cognisant of those views and feelings, might wish to make sure that at a suitable time they were taken account of and incorporated in suitable legislation. No Government who are aware of a problem can possibly escape the wish to bring forward legislation which would to some extent cure that problem.
The cardinal facts of this matter are, first, that the contents of the Bill are so important and fundamental, and create such deep feeling among our constituents and among the trade concerned, that it is right and proper that consideration of this matter should be adjourned. I also hope that time will be given in order that we can be apprised of the reaction of the police and of those interested in the welfare of children, and, in particular, the views of our own constituents.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend speaks of the great concern that exists in his constituency. Will he tell the House how many letters he has received from his constituents complaining about the Bill, or any of the provisions within it?

Dr. Glyn: My hon. Friend is a prominent member of the Bar. He will agree that there has not been a great deal of publicity in the media. On the face of it, it looks as though it is just a Licensing (Amendment) Bill, and the public do not realise that its contents are important. I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that I have had representations from people about the Bill but that very few really understand it and, certainly, very few knew that the Committee stage would finish last night. There were many who knew that, normally, there would be a period of at least 14 days between the publication of the Committee stage—certainly all hon. Members know that—and the Report stage.
Most hon. Members will agree that it is not until very late in the passage of legislation that objections are brought forward. That has been my experience. In general, it is when the public begin to realise what is involved—usually when the media pick it up—that people say "My goodness, this will affect us." There has been very little publicity about this Bill, and I feel that we should adjourn. The Government should provide every possible assistance to make sure that the House has an opportunity to debate a measure that is obviously of considerable importance, and that affects the lives not only of my constituents but of constituents throughout the country. By adjourning we would be allowing the House to be possessed of the full facts. We could then have a reasonable discussion and come to a conclusion on a subject that touches the feelings of so many people in the country.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I would carry further the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) about the conduct of business in this House on Friday. He related his argument to the present situation, and the difficulty about pairing, owing to the controversy going on between the two sides of the House. I think the argument has a wider and much more permanent application than that. My hon. Friend said we were paid to be here on a Friday. I would not put it like that. I would say that we are paid to do out job properly.
It is well known, not only to us but to the public at large, that a great deal of a Member's work is done outside this Chamber—indeed, outside the Palace of Westminster. There are meetings to be addressed in our constituencies, functions to be attended and, increasingly, with the growing complexity of life and legislation, there is a duty to meet people either individually, or in groups, who have a special interest in, or expert knowledge of, matters coming before the House.
It is well known that this part of our work cannot be relegated to Saturday and Sunday. We have found it convenient for a long time now to set aside some Fridays—not all, by any means—on which we did not deal with great matters of State, and did not deal with subjects about which the Whips would require our presence. Those Fridays are available for private Members to bring forward Bills covering a wide range of topics. That means that it is the duty of every hon. Member to keep his eye on the progress of Private Member's Bills, so that he can be present if he sees that on a particular Friday a Bill is coming up about which he feels strongly, or in respect of which he has given commitments to his constitutents or others.
2.15 p.m.
Of course, he cannot hope to do that if business suddenly appears on the Order Paper on a Friday without proper notice. It may be, and it will be, argued that it was strictly in order to put this Bill on the Order Paper this morning. We know very well that although an action may be in order it is none the less to be deprecated. It is exactly to deal with that kind of situation that we have the possibility of moving a dilatory motion. It may be in order for the Bill to be put down without notice, but it is extremely undesirable and unfair to hon. Members. The device of a dilatory motion enables us to deal with that situation.
It could also be argued, and it has been argued, that the only reason why there has been such short notice is that the proceedings in Committee took longer than some of us would have wished, and that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braise) spoke at considerable length. But anyone who introduces a Bill, whether a private Member

or a Minister of a Government, must know quite well that those who disagree will express their disagreement at some length and that it is usual, in all discussions, for those who resist the measure to go into rather greater detail than those who would like to see the measure pushed through as speedily as possible. That is part of the normal democratic process. The minority on the Committee, or in the House, is entitled to play for time. If the majority has not got the stamina to endure that, it suggests that the legislation they want to push through should wait until a bigger head of steam has been developed behind it.
If members of the minority grossly abuse this right to play for time, the Chair is there to correct them. As I understand it, althought the hon. Member for Essex South-East spoke at considerable length, he did not fall foul of the Chair.

Mr. Spearing: Without going into the merits of what might have happened with this Bill, does my right hon. Friend agree that the procedural position is even more important? Had the Licensing (Amendment) Bill gone into Committee last Wednesday at 10.30 a.m. as it could have done had the business before it taken longer, it could have come out at 1 p.m. and we could have been faced with the same procedural question of short notice today, irrespective of the time or merits of the debate in the Committee itself.

Mr. Stewart: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. That reinforces my point about the sense of having such a device as a dilatory motion, not to be used for a Bill in respect of which we have had proper notice but exactly to be used in the situation in which we are now placed.
In order to respect the ruling from the Chair, I am deliberately not going into the merits of the Bill at all, although I feel very strongly about it. I assure the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that I have tried in what I have said to restrain my notorious fanaticism and put the case as calmly as it could be put. It is an important case, on purely procedural grounds. Once it is known that a Bill can be shoved through on a Friday—a Bill about which a large number of Members, who had in no way


neglected their duties, had no way of knowing that it was coming up—the whole arrangement that we have made for the conduct of business on Friday, and the possibility of taking Private Member's Bills, is endangered. I trust that the House will agree to the motion.

Mr. Neubert: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart). It is one of the strengths of this House that the former Foreign Secretary can speak on a Friday on such an issue as this.
Although I am against the provisions of the Bill, I have not previously taken part in proceedings on it. Although I was here on Friday 27th February, when it was given a Second Reading, I was involved in other parliamentary business. I was fortified in the knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) was fully apprised of the issues in the Bill and would carry on the campaign. In that I have complete confidence. I could have confidence in my hon. Friend as a constituent of his, were I to be one, as I have confidence, as a colleague, in his carrying through with the utmost vigour and determination the representation dear to his heart or to the hearts of those he represents. He has a vigour, an eloquence and a stamina that are the envy of all his parliamentary colleagues.
I would venture two reservations. First, I was disappointed on the Friday afternoon to which I have referred. Although I was in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, waiting to vote on the Bill, it did not go to a Division. It might have been better to let it go to a Division and lose on a small unrepresentative number than to let it proceed unchallenged.
Secondly, I must absolve my hon. Friend of all charges of filibustering. In my limited experience of the House, it is unusual for a Bill—even such a slight one as this may appear, with only seven clauses—to complete its Committee stage in three weeks, including one for the Whitsun Recess. My hon. Friend may have spoken at length, but the Bill nevertheless proceeded apace.
No doubt there has been a valiant fight by what has been variously described as "a doughty band" and "a tiny fanatical band" of opponents. I hope that, coming

fresh to this debate, I shall not be tainted with either charge. I would regard "doughty" as not appropriate to my build and "fanatical" as not appropriate to my nature, but if by fanaticism is meant a hostility to proposals that go deep to the heart of British life, certainly I am a fanatic, with the others. The number of hon. Members who have spoken this morning in favour of the Bill remains, after two-and-a-half hours, still in single figures—in fact, only one.
My concern naturally is for the procedure whereby this Bill comes before us this morning. I should like to describe, as the experience of one of 635 hon. Members, how I came to know that today's business was to be concerned with this Bill. Although I have not previously taken part in these debates, I hope that I am not regarded as an intruder. The public should realise that after a Bill has been through Committee, after its Second Reading, it returns to the House for Members' consideration on Report. This is therefore the appropriate time for the wider membership of the House to become involved.
I first heard that the Bill was to be taken today just before lunchtime yesterday, in a letter from the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches. Bearing in mind that the Committee had sat until 4 o'clock that morning, the fact that the Council could tip me off so quickly is a great credit to it. Admittedly, the moving spirit of that organisation is resident in Westminster, so the spirit did not have to move particularly fast or far, but it is nevertheless an achievement to have alerted hon. Members interested in the Bill to such a quick change of business.
Secondly, I was in the House yesterday when the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised the matter as a point of order, and I heard Mr. Speaker's ruling that the business was indeed in order. However, like other hon. Members, I feel that if this is to be in order, the spirit and not just the letter of the law should be observed. It is important that a matter like this should not be rushed through.
My third notice of this business was from reading my local paper, published yesterday, as part of my post in the train this morning. There I read that the Rom-ford Branch of the National Association


of Licensed House Managers had published an open letter to their MP at Westminster. I suggest that the association invests in an 8½p stamp and sends such letters to me direct. If business is to proceed at this breakneck pace, I could have read the local paper at the weekend and the whole thing would have been over.

Mr. Lee: My own experience suggests a better way, which would not have disadvantaged the hon. Member or the senders of the letter. When I was the Member for Reading, one correspondent used to write "OHMS" on his envelopes and they used to get through.

Mr. Neubert: No doubt all this advice will be noted by those who need it.
This was the situation of one Member of Parliament. I hasten to disabuse the Under-Secretary of the belief that hon. Members in the North Country receive their Order Papers in the post on the same day as the business is to be taken. I live only 25 minutes' drive south of this place. I received yesterday's Order Paper in the post only this morning, and I shall not receive today's until tomorrow. Therefore, unless one is particularly assiduous, or is alerted to the fact that the Bill is coming forward, one has no chance. It is asking a great deal to expect every hon. Member to acquaint himself with the business of the House if the necessary notice is to be so short.
I accept that it is in order that this Private Member's Bill should have been brought forward so soon. But I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who has obviously just returned from his lunch—I envy him that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, waiting to catch your eye, I have not had that opportunity yet—that although it may be within the law to avoid taxation, it is not always regarded with great esteem by other members of the community when it is brought to their attention.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Those in favour of the Bill gave early warning over a week ago to the well over 100 hon. Members who are known to be committedly in favour of the Bill—

Mr. Beith: Only them?

Mr. Clarke: —that this legislation was likely to be taken today.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Cool

Mr. Clarke: If, as I now understand, no such notice was given to the opponents of the Bill—although they were on the same Standing Committee, including the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), who is making those cooing noises—it suggests that they were such enthusiastic opponents of the Bill, and so skilful in the procedures of the House, that they did not realise that they would be facing a debate today. In fact, I suggest that they knew perfectly well that they would be facing this debate today, and that theirs is a bogus protest.

Mr. Neubert: If the 100 supporters of the Bill were given notice a week ago that the Bill would be coming up today, it is not much evidence for the strength of their support that only two of them are here. They are so few in number that they are forced to adopt the same system of rota duties as they apparently used in Committee—one remains on the Bench while the other goes to lunch. We look forward to hearing their opposition to the motion in due course.

Mr. Mike Thomas: rose—

Mr. Neubert: Let me return to the question of my own position. Although I knew of this business and, like everyone else, was faced with the 42 starred amendments, I have had very little opportunity to acquaint myself with developments on the Bill. This may be held against me.

Mr. Mike Thomas: rose—

Mr. Neubert: If the hon. Member is so anxious to intervene, I shall of course give way.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Before the hon. Gentleman passes on to an entirely new part of his no doubt brief speech, may I point out that if a rota were capable of being operated, here or in Committee—

Mr. Ron Lewis: It was in Committee.

Mr. Thomas: — my hon. Friend knows more about these matters than I do—that only suggests that the opponents of the Bill are so few in number that that option is not open to them.

Mr. Neubert: I think that the hon. Member will find in the fullness of time that opposition to the Bill is rather more widespread than he imagines.
2.30 p.m.
It may be held against me that I had not sufficiently fully acquainted myself of developments on the Bill. I freely acknowledge that—I am neither ubiquitous nor omniscent. But once I knew that the Bill was returning to the House I realised that that was my opportunity to return to its consideration as a Member of the House rather than as a member of the Committee. Once I was alerted yesterday afternoon, I went to the Vote Office and collected the relevant Committee proceedings. Not all the Committee proceedings were available, because the Committee finished consideration only at 4 a.m. today. Yet at 11 a.m. we were called upon further to consider the Bill.
It has been impossible for me, as a representative Member of Parliament, to read through the Committee proceedings, which run to 474 columns. Anyone who thinks that I am remiss in this would be hypocritical.
It is understood that Members of Parliament cannot be everywhere at once and cannot involve themselves in every piece of legislation. It is an important principle that they are able to delegate to their colleagues the conduct of a campaign that they support. That is the argument for an hon. Member who has been absent from the debate being allowed to vote in a Division. We are able to entrust the conduct of a debate to hon. Members whose judgment we respect who hold the same beliefs as we do. Otherwise, with the welter of legislation that passes through the House, an hon. Member would not be able to move from the Chamber, and that would make wider contacts and engagements impossible.

Dr. Glyn: Does my hon. Friend agree with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), that people outside the Chamber do not realise that attendance in the Chamber is only part of the work of a Member of Parliament, and that no hon. Member can possibly be present every day? We owe a great debt to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing this point

to the attention of the Press and the public.

Mr. Neubert: I agree with what my colleague says.
With respect to and affection for my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, the appearance of haste that has been given by these procedures is alarming. I have sat here with mounting anxiety and at times anger at what is proposed. In addition to rushing the Bill from the Committee Room to the Floor of the House in record time, even this morning there was a further piece of pretty smart work when a Division was called for which Tellers were not found. I was in the Chamber checking to see whether there were Tellers, and I happened to see my hon. Friend come forward, even more quickly than did the hon. Member for Newham, South, who wished to move the motion, to say that consideration should now begin.

Mr. Clarke: I am anxious to refute that that was sharp practice. I had no idea that a Division would be called on the Divorce (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill. I left the Chamber to vote for the amendment, and the Division was called by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), with whom I had no discussions. I was almost caught out in the way that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was caught out. He and I were both in the same Division Lobby, about to vote on the Divorce (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill. I claim no skill for having realised first that we were about to be in serious trouble, but I ran back and, perhaps, ran a little faster than did the hon. Member for Newham, South.

Mr. Neubert: I deliberately did not say "sharp practice"; I said "smart work". Springheeled Jack would have been left gasping.
I give the impression of this being a "rushed through" Bill because it is important to the further development of my case. It is necessary to ensure, in the business of the House, that proper notice is given. It was that fundamental issue—that important safeguard—that was and remains at the heart of the dispute between the Opposition and the Government over the Lord President's proposals to dispense with Standing Orders relative to a hybrid Bill. The Lord President was prepared, at 24 hours'


notice, to move that motion, which could be carried not by a majority of two-thirds present and voting but by a simple majority of one vote—as it was, and even that vote was in dispute. That fundamental safeguard was disregarded by those procedures, and that principle is as important on this smaller Bill as it was on the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill.
It is a safeguard of a democratic organisation that there should not be changes of procedure and the bringing forward of business without adequate notice. Ample opportunity should be given to enable those taking part in the business to know about changes, and for the wider public to be alerted. That has not been done in this case.
Although hon. Members may say until they are blue in the face that their colleagues knew a week ago and that the business has been on the stocks for some time, hon. Members depend on publicity in the Press and on radio and television to know what is happening. On a Friday the Press Gallery is almost as deserted as is the Floor of the House. Unfortunately, Private Members' Bills rarely gets much of a hearing or much coverage in the Press at any time.
I warn the proponents of the Bill that the issues it raises are of far wider concern than they imagine. The Bill has the innocuous and seemingly deceptive title of the Licensing (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. Once the people at large are alerted to what it means, and when they learn, as I did this morning, that it means that unaccompanied children up to the age of 14—down to whatever age I do not know—can go to licensed premises, there will be a great outcry.
In my locality there is already great concern about the vulnerability of children at the age of 14, let alone younger children. That is a much more serious matter, as they are concerned about the proposal made by the National Council for Civil Liberties that sexual intercourse should be allowed at that low age. When the proposal to allow unaccompanied children into public houses is known to those people, they will be concerned and there will be a great flood of expressions of opinion. It is to enable that flood to flow that the motion has been moved.
It is because Private Members' Bills are inconspicuous, and so little publicised, that private Members have such powers. As private Members, it is part of our privilege to utter, on Friday afternoon, the word "Object". On many occasions one Back Bench Member of Parliament has been able to obstruct the passing of a Bill or its further consideration by uttering the word "Object". It is sometimes felt by people outside that this is an unwarranted privilege to confer on an individual Member, in view of the known eccentricities and vagaries of thought and action of Members of Parliament. But that procedure is in the good sense of the House and has been devised as proper protection to offset the balance of advantage against private Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, who wishes to oppose this measure with the greatest vigour he has at his command.
The fact that this measure is brought forward, and, apparently, goes through the procedures of the House correctly, is no argument. The proponents of this wide-ranging measure must be seen to be fair and just and not be seen to be carrying it through helter-skelter, pushing aside any obstacle in their way. If they succeed in their objective, if there is not proper consultation, and the wider public opinion is not alerted, they will be regarded as having achieved their end at a price that should not have been paid, and their reputation will suffer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe calls the Bill a small, civilised reforming measure. He makes the Home Secretary—the architect of the so-called civilised society—seem like a babe in arms. This measure is fundamental. It goes to the heart of the English way of life. For my hon. Friend and his colleagues to bring it forward in this way at this speed does no credit to him or to the reputation of the House.

Mr. Lee: Common humanity requires that somebody should come to the assistance of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He has been lambasted from all directions since the early part of the debate. It has been going on for four and a half hours—

Mr. Ron Lewis: No—two and a half hours.

Mr. Lee: I am not sure whether my arithmetic is correct, but I think it has been going on for longer than that.
Just over 30 hours have passed since the Committee stage was concluded, but I wish to say a few words about why the proceedings should continue and the arguments addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) were wrongly conceived. It is right that a balanced argument should be adduced.
In a sense, every minute which passes since my hon. Friend moved his dilatory motion diminishes the force of his arguments. When he rose to speak soon after the House met, it was cogent to argue that there had not been time to disseminate round the House a number of recently-tabled amendments so that hon. Members might have the opportunity of evaluating them and considering their point of view on them. During the debate, hon. Members have had time to retire to the Library with the amendments and to consider them and return to the Chamber armed with their arguments.

Mr. Spearing: I presume that my hon. Friend heard what I said. My first point was that most hon. Members were not even aware that there were any new amendments—not just late amendments—or that the proceedings on the Bill were to take place. That is the major obstacle of which my hon. Friend has not taken account.

Mr. Lee: I understand that. I shall in due course deal with the case in favour of the motion.
It is a point of substance that yesterday many hon. Members, on looking at the Order Book, would not have been on inquiry that it was the intention that this quite important and controversial legislation should be interposed after the Scottish divorce lawyers had had their say. One would expect Scottish divorce lawyers to be reasonably generous of their advice, but this morning they were uncharacteristically reticent. As a result, this Bill came on fairly early.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that it was impossible for hon. Members to discuss the amendments and to add their names to them so that when Mr. Speaker made his selection he would

be able to use as a guide the weight of feeling indicated by the number of names attached to the amendments? Therefore, even if one accepts my hon. Friend's point about the amount of time taken in this debate diminishing the arguments against the amendments, surely the amount of time available for tabling amendments is a strong argument for adjourning the debate so that hon. Members may consider whether they should give support to the amendments.

Mr. Lee: I concede that there is some substance in that. Breathing down the neck of the Chair is not altogether an adequate substitute for being able to crowd the Notice Paper—I do not use that phrase in a pejorative sense—with amendments. The Chair can get the sense of the debate and will even call late amendments, if it becomes apparent—and it can become apparent quite quickly-that certain matters are of compelling concern. The selection of the Chair would be influenced accordingly.
2.45 p.m.
Let us compare the situation on this Bill—a controversial measure which does not commend itself to a substantial and sincere segment of opinion across the spectrum of politics—with the expedition with which the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, the Southern Rhodesia Bill of 1965 and the war-time measures of 3rd September 1939 and 12th May 1941 were passed, or, to take a still more controversial instance, the speed with which the abdication Act of 1936 was rushed through in a single day, namely, 10th December 1936. One cannot say that that legislation was less important or was of less controversiality or less constitutional significance than the Bill with which we are concerned today.

Mr. Neubert: Is the hon. Gentleman contending that the measures to combat terrorism and to meet a constitutional crisis are to be compared with a Bill deriving from a report which took 18 months in the making and which has languished for years waiting for the Government to take action?

Mr. Lee: They are not comparable as to the substance of the matters with which they deal, but they are all legislation of a controversial character being processed by Parliament. To that extent, the comparison is valid.
The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) mentioned some of the Northern Ireland legislation. It was legislation of a controversial kind and was certainly of considerable constitutional significance. Whether one was for or against it, it aroused considerable anxiety and concern. Yet the House was prepared to give it fairly expeditious Committee and Report stages without feeling that the constitutional rights of the people whom it affected would be adversely impinged upon.

Dr. Glyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was legislation which affected the lives of people, which went through the House almost without any difficulty and which was of a different character? It had not been waiting in the queue for 18 months. It indicated the way in which the House could react very quickly to a serious situation.

Mr. Lee: In so far as one can ever evaluate the degree of support for legislation before a Division is called—and in the instance which the hon. Gentleman has in mind it was called but was ineffective because there were not even two Tellers to oppose it—the point which the hon. Gentleman makes is valid. One should be chary of equating controversiality with the degree of support. Legislation can be controversial even though it commands a wide measure of support. It may be the source of much opposition yet perhaps not have great intrinsic merit.
Let me give an example. The Parliament (No. 2) Bill of 1969, which was Dick Crossman's cock-eyed attempt to revamp the other place, was not of any great intrinsic importance, but it attracted much legislative attention. It was not a case of its being bitterly opposed; hon. Members simply felt that it should be given a great deal of consideration.

Mr. Cryer: Let me take up my hon. Friend's point about the question of comparability of Bills involving matters of controversy. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill went through the House very rapidly. The Committee stage was taken on the Floor of the House. Generally, in the case of Bills of great constitutional importance which are rushed through, the

Committee stage can involve every one of the 635 Members. In this case, this Bill was taken upstairs in a Committee which completed its proceedings in the early hours of yesterday morning. That has presented the House with the difficulty of having to proceed with almost unprecedented haste.

Mr. Lee: That is a valid argument. It is one of the oddities of the procedures of the House that, whereas a highly controversial—let us say even inflammatory—piece of legislation such as a Bill to abolish capital punishment can be taken in Committee upstairs, a wholly uncontroversial and uncontroverted Bill which is of a constitutional character—for instance, measures dealing with the independence of the Seychelles and the Bahamas, to which no one, not even the darker fringes of the Monday Club, objects—has to be taken on the Floor of the House according to constitutional usage. That is one of the anomalies with which our procedure plagues us. Such a situation is what makes the debate on this motion important.

Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of being too introspective. This is not so much a question of whether we in this House may not be aware of what is going on. He has referred to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and the abdication Act. In those cases, the general public at large were at least alert to the facts—in the one case, that people were being blown up in Birmingham, and in the other that the King was about to abdicate. In this case, however, I suggest that not one person in 10,000 knows that this Bill is before the House and that it would allow children to go unaccompanied into licensed premises.

Mr. Lee: I agree in part with the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether the public in 1936 were aware that Lang, Dawson and Baldwin were conspiring to get rid of the Monarch or, if they had known, what they would have done with those gentlemen. If one has enemies like that, one deserves all the friends one can get.

Sir Bernard Braine: Apart from that, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that not a single sponsor of the Bill is present to listen to the debate?

Mr. Lee: That is a difficulty. But I cannot forbear from commenting that I have never seen the Opposition Front Bench looking better—there is no one there at all. Apparently it now works on an automatic pilot system. The House is much better off that way.
But I was giving other reasons why I think it right that we should perhaps prevail upon my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South to withdraw his motion or, if he does not, that regretfully we should vote it down. It has been said —the hon. Member for Windsor put it even more charitably than it deserves—that the Home Office would have an opportunity, if the motion were passed, to consider its own position and arrive at an opinion. A fact-finding committee had been gestating for 18 months, but here we are, at the end of the Standing Committee stage of the Bill and before beginning the Report stage, and the Home Office's sole contribution is to announce, with singular lack of heroism and dignity, that it is totally neutral.
In the light of that situation, it is expecting too much to suppose that, in the period before the Bill would return on Report—16th July, I believe—the Home Office would be able to take up a positive view. It could reasonably be argued that if we were now to proceed with the Report stage we might actually force the Home Office off the fence. It might be obliged to take a positive stance for or against one or some or all of the 42 amendments.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is echoing my dearest wish. That is precisely my intention when we can get on with the Report stage.

Mr. Lee: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). My hon. Friend and I shared a transoceanic odyssey last year and found ourselves in considerable agreement, except that he was perhaps even tougher on the capitalist world than I was when we were in the South Pacific. It is not the first time that my hon. Friend and I have found ourselves in agreement.
Why is the Home Office neutral? Is it because it has applied its mind to the Bill and reached certain conclusions, or because it has not applied its mind at all to the Bill? Or is it because it has not a mind to apply? The Home Office

is not neutral on the question of race relations, and that is a good thing. It is not neutral on the question of immigration, and that is a good thing. It is not neutral, although not necessarily in the best sense of non-neutrality, on the question of obscene publications procedures. It is not neutral, as far as I detect, on the question of the evaluation of the conspiracy laws, although quite what its attitude is there is not actually clear. It is possible to drag an opinion out of the Home Office on those other matters, so why should it be neutral about licensing?
At one time, when discipline in the Parliamentary Labour Party was tighter than it is—until some of my hon. Friends and I got the message home to the Whips a few years ago—the only things on which a Labour Member could rebel were religion and alcohol. We have expanded that list. But that cannot be cited as an adequate reason for the Home Office taking up this ridiculous posture of neutrality towards licensing.

Mr. Cryer: There is other strong evidence to support the view that the Home Office should have a chance to reach an opinion. Perhaps the Home Office thinks that the motion should be supported because it knows full well that a Select Committee of the House is considering the question of battered wives and battered children, that a considerable link has been established by that Committee between alcoholism and child battering, and that such evidence is germane to the Bill. Therefore, the view of the Home Office should be that the Bill should and can only be considered in conjunction with all the evidence. That means deferring the Report stage of the Bill.

Mr. Lee: That would be a positive point of view. It is not mine, but it is a sustainable argument that the Home Office, because of the factors my hon. Friend has mentioned—although I do not put quite the same valuation upon them—should support the motion and take a stand resistant to the Bill in its substantive form. I understand that the Home Office supports the motion on the ground of shortness of time. It has carefully refrained from expressing any view about the merits of the Bill. That is an ungainly procedure and not one that I would expect of the Home Office.


Home Secretaries, generally speaking, find themselves in controversial situations. Possibly the reason why the Home Office has decided, uncharacteristically, to "chicken out" on this occasion is that it wants to have a quiet life.
3.0 p.m.
The Bill is a short one. There are only seven clauses and three pages of legislative matter comprising something like 100 lines. The first five lines describe what the Bill does, and the next four lines contain the operative words:
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows".
It is only when we come to line 5 on page 1 that there is an indication of the extent to which the law, if the Bill were to be passed, would depart from the present position.
The Bill goes on to discuss the additional hours in licensed premises and registered clubs. This is what my hon. Friends seek, and in general I support it. I hope that in due course the Bill will get a fair wind. There is not a great deal on the first page that requires reflection and rumination before the Report stage could be embarked upon in this Chamber without hon. Members feeling a sense of grievance that they had been rushed and had insufficient time to take up a positive position upon it.
At the top of page 2 we find that no change is proposed with regard to Christmas Day and Good Friday. Therefore, subsection (3) of Clause 1 is not likely to engage our attention on Report. This tends to reinforce the argument that this short Bill does not give us much cause for demanding intellectual activity before we can assimilate its contents.
It is interesting to compare the Bill with the EEC documents concerning company law legislation which some of us were trying to understand and assimilate last night. There were no less than eight EEC documents concurrently before the House in a single debate. That debate required a far more demanding degree of fleetness of intellect than this piece of legislation, which, whatever its merits or demerits, uses English in an intrinsically

simple way and does not require a very great deal of concentration to understand.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument very closely, but is he not failing to take account of the fact that these quite simple provisions of the Bill will have the most profound—indeed, devastating—consequences on the health and welfare of children, as well as upon questions of law and order which arise from later drinking hours? It is precisely because the Bill appears to be innocuous that so little attention has been paid to it up to now.
But our deliberations in Committee revealed that there were grounds for the most widespread concern, which the minority, at any rate, felt should be conveyed to the House of Commons as a whole. It is for this reason, I suggest, that the House should support the motion, in order that even the sponsors of the Bill—most of whom are absent—should hear the criticisms that we are ready to level at them. The Home Office should have the opportunity to listen and test that opinion. This, apparently, was the reason why the Home Secretary was willing to give technical advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in the drafting of his Bill.

Mr. Lee: I quite accept that brevity is compatible with importance. If we think, for example, of four pieces of controversial legislation, which might be described in honour of the former Prime Minister as "Harold's four H's"—hangings, homos, husbands or divorce, and hereditary peerages—they were dealt with in short, succinct pieces of legislation all of which were controversial but none of which had the complexity of, say, the Development Land Tax Bill or the annual Finance Bill. There is, therefore, a point in that. Nevertheless it is reasonably easy, unless one is very tired—as I feel at the moment after last night's nocturnal activities on the Common Market legislation—to try to assimilate these matters and to contribute, I hope, effectively, to the debate.
I continue with my reasons why I think there is a case for going on with the Bill. The time before the recess is comparatively short. If the House rises at the end of July, we have effectively no more than six working weeks. Everyone knows


the state that legislation reaches in this House in July. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred quite aptly, during the motion to fix the Summer Recess, to this House being a "madhouse" in July. The House sits to the most extraordinary hours and has to engorge itself on a host of pieces of legislation, very often in the small hours, very often with scant regard not only to Members' own health but to the convenience of the servants of the House and without much regard to the ability of the public outside to keep up with it. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) pointed out that it is quite impossible for an hon. Member to keep abreast of everything that goes on in this House and that he has to rely on his colleagues who specialise in certain subjects to monitor the various pieces of legislation coming before the House. That is a valid point.
Nevertheless, bearing in mind that this is only a seven-clause Bill—I shall have to say a little more about the fact that much of the end of the Bill is no more than textual formality—perhaps it is not so inordinate a demand upon the physical and mental resources of hon. Members to call upon them, even at this stage, to commence the Report stage proceedings on the Bill—[interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) seeking to intervene?

Mr. Lawrence: No, but I am hoping to have an opportunity to be called in this debate.

Mr. Lee: I hope that I am not being selfish and that I shall leave the hon. Gentleman sufficient time to speak before the debate ends at 4 o'clock.
Intrinsically this is a simple Bill, and in my view it should be considered today. Undoubtedly the most controversial part of it is Clause 2. There is no gainsaying that. On balance, I support the Bill. I am not tremendously enthusiastic about it. but I have to concede that if any part of the Bill should give rise to concern it is Clause 2. Judging by the volume of discussion in the Standing Committee, that clause exercised the minds of members of the Committee to a very great extent. A great many speeches were made about it, and they reflected a genuine concern.
Clause 2 deals with the question of the access of children to licensed premises, and it does not require a great deal of imagination to visualise the difficulties and undesirable situations which may arise. The fact remains that the licensing justices, like all lay justices, are given to judicial eccentricities from time to time, and they do not always exercise the degree of supervision over the operation of the existing licensing laws that some of us would wish. It is perfectly understandable for hon. Members to want to consider that provision.
There are quite a large number of amendments pertaining to Clause 2, in fact there are something like 20 amendsments, mostly in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) as well as some in the names of the hon. Members for Essex, South-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis). They all relate in some measure to an attempt to limit the scope of the operation of Clause 2. There is also an amendment put down by the hon. Member for Burton which requires children to be accompanied by a person over 18 when they go into a bar.

Mr. Lawrence: rose—

Mr. Lee: I shall give way in a minute. There are other amendments designed to provide for additional offences relating to people who take children into bars without their parents' consent.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the hon. Member against this dilatory motion? Does he wish to delay progress on the Bill? If he does not, why is he speaking so long and delaying the House?

Mr. Lee: I have only just begun my speech. I felt it right that with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, like a missionary in hostile pagan territory, receiving as much stick from his own hon. Friends as he is from the temperance lobbies on this side of the House—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned, put accordingly and negatived.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to seek to withdraw the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion was negatived, and we shall now therefore proceed to consideration of the Bill.

New Clause 1

ENFORCEMENT BY POLICE

'A constable may enter any premises in respect of which an order under section 1 or section 2 of this Act has been made at any time during which the sale, consumption or supply of intoxicating liquor is permitted and this power shall be in addition to the powers conferred by virtue of section 186 of the principal Act'.— [Sir B. Braine.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Those who seek to tamper with our licensing laws at a time when drunkenness, alcohol-related offences, and alcoholism are all on the increase, are under some obligation to ensure that the relaxations that they propose are properly controlled. The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that, as the Bill proposes longer drinking hours, and permits, for the first time, unaccompanied children under 14 to enter licensed bars, there should be adequate powers of surveillance by the police.
The underlying purpose of the Bill is very clear. It is to increase levels of consumption of alcohol, and it does so directly in Clause 1 and indirectly in Clause 2.
It is true that no licensee is forced to apply for an additional hours order or a children's accommodation order unless he thinks that these are wanted by his customers and he can expand his trade as a result. That being so, it is important for hon. Members to grasp at the outset of this debate that experience in this country, in Europe, in North America and in other societies comparable with our own, shows very clearly that an increase in the levels of consumption of alcohol is co-related with an increase in drunkenness, alcoholism, and the toll of death and injury on the roads, and a great deal of marital unhappiness, ill-treatment of wives and children and the break-up of families.
3.15 p.m.
All this spells out a huge cost in economic terms, in industrial and business efficiency, in sickness, in human misery, and in demands upon our overburdened social services. I make no complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) talked about my long speeches in Committee. It was necessary to acquaint members of the Committee, the wider membership of the House and the public with certain facts of social life in this country today.
Clearly, therefore, any proposal which would have the effect of increasing levels of consumption should be examined closely. Any proposal for longer drinking hours and for familiarising young children with the atmosphere in which licensed drinking takes place should be examined with the utmost care.
Let me quote from the controversial Erroll Committee Report, which said that
the sale of intoxicating liquor is not like that of any other commodity. It is not necessary to delve into history in order to establish that alcohol has effects on human behaviour which may be socially undesirable. The patterns of anti-social behaviour … embrace a whole range of reactions from minor brawls. to violent crimes committed under the influence of drink".
Why is it that, by and large, the British public house is an admired institution, well entrenched in the affections of our people? Why is it that it is widely regarded as a place of refuge and refreshment, of warmth and friendliness, and why is it that serious studies have shown that the peculiarly British habit of drinking in pubs has been a factor in the relatively low level of excessive drinking in this country compared to countries like France, Germany, Italy, the United States and Sweden?
The recent study of our system of control by the Canadian Alcoholic Beverage Standing Committee revealed that it is this British habit of sober drinking in pubs in familiar surroundings which has been a major factor in our relatively low levels of heavy drinking.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to draw your attention to the matter, but I have the advantage of having heard my hon. Friend's speech several times before.


It seems to me that so far my hon. Friend has not addressed a solitary word to the right of a constable to enter premises, which is the subject matter of the new clause about which he is supposed to be talking. My hon. Friend's review of Canadian experience of liquor licensing control takes a considerable time, as I well recall.
I invite you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give a ruling about what is comprised within the clause, so that we may have an ordered debate dealing with specific point by specific point, and have guidance as to why my hon. Friend thinks it necessary to move the Second Reading of a clause giving a constable power to enter premises in the way he advocates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is experienced enough to know that the argument must be related to the clause. I had hoped that he would come to the clause very speedily.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am already on the clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is yet another example, which will not be lost on hon. Members or on a wider public when they read what I say, of what happened in Committee, where the only contribution my hon. Friend and his supporters could make to serious discussions within the parameters of order was continually to sabotage those of us who had something serious to say on the subject. The irresponsibility of my hon. Friend does him no service.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point with which he is dealing is of great interest in Scotland as well,. We have a Licensing Bill going through the House at the same time. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the British story of the drinking problem. It is more serious in Scotland than in England. As a Scot—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The clause does not apply to Scotland. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not proceed along that line.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). He is making a valid point. There are differences between the patterns of drinking in England and in

Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman raised the matter, and as it is relevant to what I have to say, let me say that one reason why there is a more serious drinking problem in some parts of Scotland is that the number of public houses in relation to population is smaller than in England.
The English pattern is widely admired not only throughout the British Isles but throughout the civilised world. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe sneers at the Canadian study, what he fails to recognise is that it praised the English system.
The reason why, by and large, the English and Welsh public house has been well conducted, and there has been a relatively low level of drunkenness in this country is that we have had a well-tried and well-understood system of control by permitted hours, until recently accompanied by a good relationship with the police and the local magistrates. Although my hon. Friend seems curiously ignorant of the fact, part of that control has been bound up with the relationship between the police and the licensee. I shall come on to that in some detail, because it is not a subject which was discussed in Committee.
It was not always so. Up to the First World War, the situation in this country was rapidly getting out of control. Drunkenness was increasing alarmingly. Licensing reform became necessary. Hours were shortened, and the alcoholic content of drink was reduced.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your protection for those who wish to have an ordered debate on the subject? We have Mr. Speaker's selection of new clauses and amendments, each of which appears on the Order Paper and clearly encompasses a particular subject. I am not trying to usurp the functions of the Chair, although my hon. Friend will say immediately that I am. What my hon. Friend is doing is an abuse of the procedures. It gives nobody else any chance to take part in an ordered debate if he enters into a long diatribe about the demon drink and the history of the licensing laws. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep my hon. Friend in order, and ask him to address himself to the reason why he thinks the Bill


does not give a constable adequate powers to enter premises.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already asked the hon. Gentleman to pay attention to the point, and I am sure that he will address himself exclusively to new Clause 1.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am addressing myself to the question of licensing control in Britain.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That is not the point.

Sir Bernard Braine: I wonder whether, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you could advise my hon. Friend that he has no right to assume to himself the powers of the Chair. I am addressing myself to the question of the pattern of licensing control in Britain. Hitherto, under the present law this has involved the participation of the police. I am perfectly in order to describe exactly how that relationship works, and indeed how that relationship has deteriorated. In itself this is a powerful reason for rejecting the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House not on the subject of the Bill, but on the subject of New Clause 1, which is related to a constable entering premises.

Sir Bernard Braine: That is true, but I am seeking to explain why it is that constables who used to enter premises no longer do so. This is part of the pattern of the reason why the licensing law has been put under considerable strain. Because it is relevant to proposals made in the Bill, I am entitled to make my speech in my own way within the parameters set down.
This is a new clause, and is not an amendment to the existing part of the Bill. In order to establish the case for a new clause, one has to explain the reasons why that clause is tabled. My hon. Friend is following a tactic which he followed repeatedly in Standing Committee. He could not defeat us by argument, and therefore his purpose was to interrupt one in the middle of a sentence before a thought had been properly developed and before the Committee could hear what one had to say. He was constantly on his feet with some

point of order suggesting that the Chair was not doing its duty.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that I had only just started my speech when the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) moved the closure, and never allowed me to have my say?

Sir Bernard Braine: Yes. I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you should take cognisance of the irresponsible way in which my hon. Friend has behaved throughout.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Get on with it.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am now encouraged to "get on with it", the hon. Gentleman having disturbed the flow of my argument. But the Minister has sat patiently in Committee throughout our deliberations and will readily testify that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The one thing of which I cannot take consideration is what happened in Standing Committee.

Sir Bernard Braine: I accept your wise guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that, after a long pattern of sensible drinking hours which followed the licensing review which became necessary at the outbreak of the First World War, we set a model which was praised by the rest of the world.
We are now in a new situation. We now have coming before the courts the highest number of drink-related offences since before the First World War. In the 10 years from 1964 to 1974 the figures jumped from 76,842 to over 103,000. What is particularly significant—and this is relevant to the surveillance and policing of public houses—is that out of those figures the proportion of offenders under 21 rose from 12 per cent. of the total in 1964 to almost 20 per cent. of a far larger total in 1974. In the same period there was a huge increase in the per capita consumption of beer, wines and spirits. I have no doubt that the relaxation of licensing procedures from 1961 onwards has been a contributory factor to this deterioration.
3.30 p.m.
Another factor has been the change in police surveillance, which this new clause seeks to remedy. What is particularly


alarming in this context is the effect of the new permissiveness upon our society and upon the drinking habits of young people. Since the police have to deal with the consequences of this it will soon become apparent, if it is not so already, that police surveillance is a matter which we ought to discuss.
The figures that I have quoted should shock the House, though they may not have shocked my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. They provide ample justification for rejecting the Bill although all that I can do this afternoon is to seek to improve it by asking the House to add this new clause to it.
Among schoolchildren, for example, surveys have shown that the proportion who felt that drunkenness was wholly wrong had fallen significantly between 1963 and 1970. The fall in that proportion is continuing. It is against that background that the Bill's proposals to liberalise—if that is the word—still further our licensing laws must be judged. It is against that background that the imperative need for this new clause and for later amendments must been seen, although I devoutly hope that the House will reject altogether this miserable, ill-timed and socially irresponsible Bill.
The Bill's two purposes—and I must reiterate them in the context of what I am about to say—are to permit the extension of drinking hours and to admit children under 14 years of age to what is called a family room in a licensed bar.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you, but not to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), for intervening yet again in his speech. I am in no way seeking to usurp your function. We had a debate on this new clause in Committee. I know that you are not concerned with what went on in Committee. The issue enshrined in the clause, which without presuming too much I am sure was in the mind of Mr. Speaker when he selected it, is whether the present powers of police to enter licensed premises are adequate in the light of the Bill. That was the parameter of the debate in Committee. My hon. Friend has prepared a long time ago—he has delivered it before—a long speech on the merits of this Bill, the history of the licensing law, and alcoholism

among the young and adults. His occasional references to police surveillance in no way make his speech remotely relevant to the new clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has been saying. As soon as I find that he is out of order I shall say so.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Forgive me for intervening yet again, but I think that I should draw to your attention that throughout the proceedings on this Bill—this is another example and it is why I seek your guidance—the hon. Member for Esesx, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has slipped in occasional, peripheral references which appear, in passing, to make his speech relevant. I appreciate how difficult it is for you to deal with these matters. I appreciate that it is always the wish of the Chair to protect the rights of individual Members. I point out that other hon. Members have rights too. Throughout the proceedings I have been abused for not intervening in the debates. May I make it clear to you that because of this sort of behaviour by the hon. Gentleman I have never had the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East has been saying. He said that he had two points which he wanted to make initially to lay a foundation for a further point. I would like to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the arguments very carefully. The hon. Gentleman has been subjected to continual interruptions. Of course, I am subject to your ruling, but, in my opinion, what he has been saying has been a perfectly relevant development of his argument on the new clause.

Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I submit to you with respect that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has no right to arrogate to himself the power to make constant interruptions as he has done. We are accustomed to awaiting guidance from the Chair. He is wasting the time of the


House by arrogating to himself powers which he does not possess.

Mr. Neubert: Was it in your hearing and understanding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that the same new clause had been considered in Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had not noticed that. In fact, this new clause has been selected by Mr. Speaker for debate, and the hon. Gentleman has been elaborating his arguments on that new clause.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This point of order, which was raised by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), is indicative of his action throughout the whole of the Committee proceedings when the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) was speaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Bernard Braine: By this time hon. Members may have lost the thread of my argument, and it may therefore be for the convenience of the House if I remind hon. Members that the Bill's main purposes are to permit the extension of drinking hours and to admit children under 14 years of age to what is called a family room in a licensed bar, although how one can use the term "family room" when such children can be admitted unaccompanied by an adult defeats my imagination.
These proposals reverse the trend in our licensing laws, which have been controlled satisfactorily by benches of magistrates and by the police for a long time. They also fly in the face of legislation designed to protect young children. They are advanced at a time of increasing rowdyism, hooliganism, drunkenness and violence in our society. It is no use the promoters of the Bill arguing that the Bill is permissive only and that no licensee would apply for either of the orders which the Bill would allow. The licensing trade is highly competitive, and many licensees have told me that even though they dislike the Bill's provisions—

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is again entering into a

general discussion of the merits or demerits, as he sees them, of the Bill. By doing so in the course of his speech on this new clause he deprives anyone else of the right to reply. I appeal for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Tony Durant: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May we have one point of order at a time, please? When I notice that the hon. Gentleman is straying from order I shall advise him of the fact.

Mr. Durant: Further to the point of order. I am listening very carefully to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have only recently entered the Chamber, and I want to hear the facts.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Further to the point of order. I have to reply to the debate and explain my views on this new clause. I should like your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how you consider that the arguments advanced by the principal opponents of the Bill against a family room and about the history of increasing alcoholism among children and alcoholism in Canada are remotely relevant to the debate. May I have your guidance? What am I supposed to be replying to when this ludicrous diatribe comes to an end, which in my experience it usually does after three or four hours?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already drawn attention to what is said in the new clause about a constable entering "any premises". It is to that point, I imagine, that these arguments are being directed.

Sir Bernard Braine: The routine entry of a constable on to licensed premises was an essential part of our system of control, which obtained for many years until 1971.
I am not going to be driven off the thread of my argument, which is leading to a logical conclusion, by the sabotage of the hon. Gentleman every time he rises to his feet. I have the utmost respect for the Chair and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that over the 26 years that I have been privileged to be a Member of this House I have never challenged the Chair. The hon. Gentleman does it every few minutes.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is within my clear recollection—we only finished our Committee proceddings 30 hours age—theat my hon. Friend had to be called to order 20 times in his speech and that the Chairman in Committee finally ordered him to resume his seat because he was incapable of remaining relevant, and he is making the same speech now as that which then came to that inglorious conclusion.

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall persist despite this provocation, because it will be realised that there is very deep feeling on this subject. One reason why I put the new clause down was to ensure that there was proper police surveillance of licensed premises. What my hon. Friend is doing, among other things, is to open up licensed bars to unaccompanied children under the age of 14. He does not want the argument against that brought out into the open. I think he has now got cold feet and is frightened. Perhaps he does not realise what he has done.
The truth of the matter is that in this House there are 634 other hon. Members who care desperately about the health and welfare of our children. If the children cannot be safeguarded under the licensing laws, which the hon. Gentleman seeks to weaken, somehow or other we have to put into the Bill a provision ensuring that the police resume the surveillance that they used to exercise over public houses. My hon. Friend is not going to deflect me. There is plenty of time ahead yet and he and other hon. Members can get on their feet. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) has protested, but he never got to his feet to make a contribution in our debates in Standing Committee.
Here, I must strike a serious note. People outside this House look to us for a lead in these matters and look to us to safeguard the weak. Children have no vote. I think that in this case we should stand up for the children of our country. I shall give good reasons for saying that in due course.
If I cannot silence the hon. Gentleman I still hope to stir his conscience. Every time he opens his mouth he makes difficulties for himself in his own constituency. If his own constituents learn what he

is proposing here he is inviting trouble for the future.
The truth of the matter is that the Bill does not take account of the fact that the licensing trade is highly competitive. Many licensees have told me that, even though they dislike the provisions in the Bill, they might be obliged to make applications in order to survive. The National Association of Licensed House Managers tells me there is a genuine fear that licensees will either have to conform or be driven out of business. If they conform, the increase in their overheads will undoubtedly put up the price of drink to the customers. The Bill puts new pressures and new responsibilities upon licensees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of New Clause 1. I ask him once again to come back to the point, which is about the entry of a constable.

3.45 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: Had you permitted me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to continue for one sentence, I would have made it clear that if we put additional rseponsibilities upon a licensee to keep his house open longer we should increase the rowdiness, noise and in some areas violent brawls, of which we have enough already. In support of the police view, I will quote later from the annual report of at least one chief constable, although references could be found in the reports of most chief constables.
If these additional burdens are put on a licensee who has a duty to keep an orderly house—if, for example, he has to deal with the added responsibility of catering for unaccompanied young children until 8 o'clock—there may be moments when he will need the support of the police. Most hon. Members who are connected with the law or the social services will know that I am making valid points. Licensees who feel obliged to apply for such orders will not only face earlier opening, the disappearance of the afternoon break and closing at midnight but will now have to operate a closing time for children at 8 o'clock—just when the evening trade is beginning to mount up.
How does the licensee, who at present does not have the support of the police that he used to have for reasons that I


shall give shortly, get rid of the children when, at 8 o'clock, he will have to cry, "Time, children, please."? Unaccompanied children are one problem that may involve the police. But what about children accompanied by irresponsible parents who wish to continue drinking or by a young man over 18 who then leaves the bar? How does the licensee deal with that on his own?
There is already a grave and worrying problem of young people under 18 breaking the law by buying alcoholic drink in bars. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has left the Chamber; he cannot face the realities of this situation. The number of prosecutions under this head in England and Wales alone—I do not know the situation in Scotland—rose from 4,374 in 1966 to 5,970 in 1973. I am told that the trend is continuing. Clearly there is need for greater vigilance in this respect alone.

Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the opportunities for other hon. Members than himself to speak are somewhat limited in the context of these debates. If the worries that he is expressing are so legitimate, why did police organisations give evidence to Errol asking for changes on the lines of the Bill? Secondly, why have the sponsors of the Bill had no representations from the police on the lines of the hon. Member's arguments?

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not be drawn down that path. I have had the honour of advising senior police officers for the last 10 years, and I am well aware of the police view. It would not go well with me and it would be quite improper if I said that there was police anxiety on a particular matter when there was not. The Under-Secretary of State, who represents the Home Office with such flair and distinction, would be the first to challenge me if I expressed a view about police anxieties that was not correct.
There is need for greater vigilance here. The lower age at which children will be able to enter bars unaccompanied under the Bill will exacerbate an already growing problem. What licensees require from Parliament is support, not sabotage. They need more, not less, help from the police.
What about the increased difficulty the licensee will encounter in getting rid of customers at midnight instead of at the existing normal closing time? That extra hour of drinking can make all the difference between customers leaving the premises in a sober manner and going home in a decent condition and the rowdyism in the public house and outside, which is all too often the subject of reports from the police in our big cities.
I shall spare the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East accounts in the newspapers of his great city about the rowdyism inside and outside pubs late at night, and the way in which young people are involved in bloody assaults upon one another, the police and innocent bystanders. If I were drawn on this, I could give accounts of this nature relating to practically every major city. I do not think that is necessary, because hon. Members present are all assiduous in their constituency duties and are well aware of the facts of life.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I am glad to be able to assist the hon. Gentleman. Had it ever occurred to him—perhaps he would like to engage in discussion upon it now, as everything seems to be relevant according to his approach—that it might be in the nature of the present licensing laws to encourage such behaviour? For example, every public house closes at the same time and there is a rush to drink up before that time. Might that not accentuate the problems and might not the Bill help to solve them?

Sir Bernard Braine: With the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks I am prepared to agree—for the first occasion through our long deliberation on the Bill. He spoilt it by his conclusion. The present situation is serious, as the Under-Secretary of State would agree and as every police officer knows. I am saying that the Bill will exacerbate that situation.
I have in my hand the annual report of the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire. I could have produced the annual reports of every chief constable in the country, but this one is interesting because it goes to the point. This is what the Chief Constable says:
The level of public disorder continued to increase during the year with affrays and late night brawls occurring at public houses, discotheques, and places of entertainment. In


some instances hundreds of young persons were involved presenting a difficult task for the police to restore the peace. As with assaults and woundings drink was often the underlying cause and in many instances offensive weapons were used. The display of open aggression is a very worrying feature of modern society and perfectly innocent people are terrified when swept up in running fights in the street.
Against that background, is it surprising that the police service is not happy and is opposed to the proposal in the Bill for longer and later drinking hours?

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Must not the hon. Gentleman, if he is to remain relevant, explain how conferring the powers in New Clause 1 in excess of those in Section 68 of the principal Act will affect these matters? I have no objection to his making these comments so long as occasionally he relates them to the specific issue of the amendment.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is helping me enormously.
It may come as a surprise to him and other hon. Members that in recent years, despite the deterioration in patterns of drinking behaviour—perhaps because of it—the powers of the police in regard to routine visits to licensed premises, includding clubs, have been gravely undermined. Throughout my lifetime, until 1971, it was customary for the police—the constable in the village, the inspector in towns—to visit licensed premises at intervals to ensure that the licensing hours were being obeyed. Obviously such visits were conducted when premises were reasonably full, and the presence of the officer was often the occasion for friendly banter with the patrons and the licensee.
It was generally recognised that such visits were valuable. They contributed greatly to the observance of the law. They ensured public order. They helped to promote good public relations between the public and the police. Most police forces required their officers to visit licensed premises at irregular intervals, and it was for the divisional commander, who would be a chief superintendent or his deputy, a superintendent, to ensure that such visits were maintained. Licensees were generally pleased to see the officers and regular patrons knew that such visits were to be expected, though

not when they would take place. As a result, the police were able to make a reasonable judgment as to how licensed premises in their area were being conducted and what sort of people frequented them.
Unhappily, those arrangements were swept aside—this is the reason for the new clause—following the decision in the Valentine v. Jackson case, in the High Court in 1971. As a consequence, in many areas the police instructions for visits to licensed premises were withdrawn. Instead, in some instances they were replaced by positive orders from chief officers that such establishments were not to be visited at all.
That has remained the position up till now, and yet I am assured that the vast majority of licensees, whether tenants or managers, desire the return of routine police visits to their premises. For this reason alone, I cannot understand why the Home Office, which should know the facts, has not come out in strong condemnation of the Bill.
There is another point which I wish to make, namely, the uncertainty of the powers of the patrolling constable. Before the Valentine v. Jackson case, he had no qualms about entering licensed premises when called. Now he has to stop and think whether there has been a breach of the licensing law. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, who was so anxious that I should get to this point, is not paying the slightest attention to what I am saying.
If the Bill becomes law, it follows that the uncertainty in the mind of the patrolling police officer will still exist but the dangers will be very much greater. That can be avoided if the House accepts the new clause.
Hon. Members will realise the relevance of what I said earlier about the deterioration of standards of behaviour in and around licensed premises in many areas. There can be few among us who have not had complaints and petitions from constituents about rowdyism, noise, bad language and the slamming of car doors, to put it at its mildest, when licensed premises are close to their homes. Now we have to face the possibility of later drinking hours and intensification of these nuisances at a later hour. We face the dangers surrounding the entry


to licensed bars of unaccompanied children below the age of 14.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Sir Bernard Braille: The purpose of the new clause is to strengthen the powers of the police in regard to the surveillance of licensed premises by providing an unfettered right of entry during the time that alcohol is being sold, consumed or supplied.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Sir Bernard Braine: No, I will not. My hon. Friend has repeatedly tried to sabotage my case.
Senior police officers who are gravely concerned about the present situation and the way in which it will be worsened by the Bill tell me that since the Valentine v. Jackson case—

It being Four o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday 16th July.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for further consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee) read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be further considered upon Friday, 16th July.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 16th July.

SEX DISCRIMINATION (AGE OF RETIREMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): What day? No day named.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 16th July.

COMPANIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 16th July.

SOCIAL SECURITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16th July.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (RESTRICTION OF RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16th July.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR THE NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16th July.

FARMORKERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16th July.

TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16th July.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16th July.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16th July.

TUBERCULOSIS VISITORS (HEALTH AND CHEST CLINICS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16th July.

GRAND JURIES (RESTORATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

SOLICITORS ACT 1974 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

HOMES BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [20th February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

MINERAL OIL (INDUSTRIAL HAZARDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

4.4 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: The House will be aware of the fight that the miners had over a period of years to establish the industrial hazards and dangers to health caused by the mining industry. Indeed, that fight still goes on today. The fight took place at a time when many of the dangers in the mining industry were well known and well established.
A similar thing seems to be taking place in relation to the use of mineral oil in industry. Anyone with a constituency such as mine, with over 700 factories, many of them concerned with light engineering, must be alarmed at some of the information now coming forward about the industrial hazards and health hazards connected with the use of mineral oil. The World Health Organisation quite recently said that


between 80 and 90 per cent. of human cancers are in some way or other related to the environment.
It is quite clear that cancer of the scrotum is directly related to the use of mineral oils in industry. In 1967 the report of the factory inspectors said that where this occurred in their opinion there was no doubt about it, and that the incidence of cancer of the scrotum also related to contact with soot, tar, pitch and other things as well as oil.
In fact, the dangers have been known since 1775. As long ago as 1910 it was known that certain activities of cotton mule spinners were causing cancer, and some degree of control began to be applied there.
No one, therefore, is in any danger of not knowing the facts, yet it seems to me and to those concerned with this hazard that the Government themselves, as well as many of those most directly connected with oil, are ignoring or somewhat watering down some of the dangers that exist.
For example, last year the Department of Employment, in its monthly news bulletin, for April 1975, dealing with how to save energy, suggested that by using an old wire basket to catch the swarf from the vast amounts of cutting oil used when boring cylinder blocks, it was possible to enable the oil to be recycled. In other words, if the oil were saved it could be recycled.
No doubt this appeared to be and was a most patriotic suggestion in the light of the general oil crisis and the general energy crisis, yet it is well known by another Government Department—and certainly well known by the factory inspectors—that heating oils to the temperatures required in boring a cylinder block causes an increase in the cancer-producing properties of the oil. The factory inspectors' report for 1967 highlighted the dangers of this.
The Government have prescribed a safe level of oil mist. Oil mist is highlighted by medical and other opinion as being one of the biggest industrial hazards in relation not only to cancer of the scrotum but also lung cancer, skin cancer, blood poisoning, and so on. The Government's "threshold limit values", as they are called, represent conditions under which workers may be repeatedly exposed

—it may be five days a week, for six, seven or eight hours a day—without adverse effects.
This is being contested very strongly by certain medical opinion in this country. Those standards were set over 15 years ago. The Government should perhaps look a little more closely at how those standards were arrived at. Most of the work that contributed towards these standards was done by the American Petroleum Institute, which is financed by the oil companies. Much of what it said has been contested by the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, which is very sceptical of the way in which these standards were arrived at and the arguments used to support them.
I want to make one short quotation from a pamphlet published by the British Society. It makes the following criticism:
The Institute refers to a study on the health of workers subject to oil mist in a steel mill. There was evidence on X-ray on lung changes among some of the men. But what is 'some'—10 per cent., 20 per cent.? In fact, it turned out to be 12 of the 19 men examined. The honest word, of course, would have been 'most' or 'the majority'".
Again in the review, which was the background to setting the standards, it was said:
They talk of some reported cases of skin cancer from contact with certain mineral oils. In England alone between 1920 and 1947 no fewer than 1,1441 cases of skin cancer attributable to mineral oil were reported to the Government, and the real total may well have been higher".
So when does "some" become "many", and what work has been done since these limits were set to ensure that we are not in danger of exposing workers who are using oil in this way to some of the risks? In 1950, for example, Drs. Cruickshank and Squire had published and were well aware of the dangers in used heated oils. Yet, as far as the British Society is aware, all the tests have been done on unused oils. Much of the danger comes from the heating of oils and the process through which used heated oil has been put. All the tests done on ainmals to set the danger level were done with unused oil.
In 1974, the Health and Safety at Work Act explanation pamphlet put out by the TUC talked about some of the safeguards now in existence to avoid


some of the dangers which had been highlighted and which were causing so much concern in industry. The TUC said:
Air filtration units specially designed for the elimination of micro-fog oil pollution in machine shops are now widely used in modern plants.
In fact, all the evidence suggests that they are not widely used at all, and one of the biggest companies has commented that many of them have been sold abroad rather than being put to use in this country where the danger is very high.
I should like the Minister to comment on what has taken place since the safety threshold limits were established to ensure that we are aware of or are not ignoring some of the changes which may have come to light since then as a result of medical and scientific opinion. I should also like to know what we are doing to highlight to people in industry—those who bear the heaviest responsibility, the oil companies, and management, workers and trade unions—to make sure that people are aware of the dangers and are taking the necessary protective measures for their work people and also in relation to the machinery which is used.
The hazards have been recognised by the courts for some time, and there have been a few cases where compensation has been paid to widows and others because it has been judged that the cancer or other disability was caused by the use of mineral oils.
One matter that might usefully be considered is a system of regular medical checks on all workers directly connected with the use of mineral oils. In saying that, I have in mind not only those using it now but those who have been involved in the past. Just as the miners found that one of the great difficulties that they faced was that of getting compensation and other consideration for those who developed various forms of lung disease long after they had left the mines, this also seems to be the case arising from the use of mineral oils.
I also believe that the Government should consider concentrating much more not just on telling workers to use protective clothing and to wash it regularly—because it has been established that the simple washing of clothes which have been exposed to large amounts of oil mist

will not eradicate it—but on the cleanliness of machines and on clearing oil mists from them.
In some instances where men and women have to wear protective clothing, there is often something wrong which could be corrected in the application of that from which they are being protected. It is not enough simply to allow the message to go out that if people wear the protective clothing provided they are less likely to be affected by it.
In the light of information that is accruing day by day, and that which has been known for some considerable time, the Government should establish an inquiry into the hazards connected with the oil industry in relation to those men and women who work every day in an atmosphere where the air is polluted, and which is known to cause disease and illness.
The Government should also look at the way in which tests have been carried out in the past. They should ensure that in the future tests are made with used oil which has already been heated and is known to contain these dangerous properties, rather than with unused oil—a test which has proved inadequate.

4.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): First, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for choosing this subject for debate, and I recognise her constituency interest in doing so. We welcome the opportunity to take part in the kind of open debate which my hon. Friend's initiative urges and to set out the action which is already being taken to deal with potential hazards to a large number of workers who come in contact with mineral oil during the course of their work.
I also welcome the publication of the pamphlet produced by the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, although I have considerable reservations about some of the points made in it. This is another example of the growing interest in the problems of health and safety at work which can only be helpful to the unremitting struggle against the hazards which are increasingly generated by our industrialised society.
The Government are keenly aware of the potential hazards arising from the widespread use of mineral oil, which dates from the turn of the century. The earliest effect, and that which gets greatest prominence in the pamphlet, is that of skin cancer, and in particular, cancer of the scrotum. The disease first appeared among shale oil workers towards the end of the last century and in the early years of this century its was prevalent among mule spinners in the cotton industry. These industries no longer exist, but skin and scrotal cancer are now found in the engineering, brick-making and china-making industries. It has to be admitted that we cannot place great reliance on the official statistics of the number of cases reported, largely because, owing to the long induction period of the disease, which is typically 15–20 years, many men have retired or left the industry before symptoms occur.
It will perhaps put this matter in perspective if I say that in 1930 alone, 97 cases of skin and scrotal cancer were notified to the Factory Inspectorate, and these included 26 fatal cases, whereas in the last four years a total of 32 cases, including three deaths, were reported. In 1975, the last year for which figures are available, there were five cases, of which none was fatal.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish me to outline briefly the policy being applied to try to prevent occupational cancer caused by mineral oil. It has three main elements—reducing the cancer-inducing substances in the oils; trying to reduce skin contact by means of protective clothing and better enclosure of machinery; and self-inspection to detect skin lesions at the earliest possible moment. Perhaps hon. Members will bear with me while I expand on this a little.
First, as regards reducing the cancer inducing substances, or carcinogens as they are known, the sensible approach is, wherever possible, to reduce these agents at source. This is not always possible, but I am advised that a great many cutting oils can be solvent-refined so as to remove much of what is thought to be the cancer-causing material. This has been increasingly adopted in the last 20 years.
Secondly, accepting that not all these substances are reliably removed, and also that some oils cannot be solvent-refined, there must be a back-up effort to protect the skin by means of protective clothing and to enclose machinery to reduce spashes or other contact with oils.
Finally, since neither of those methods provides 100 per cent. protection, there is a continuing campaign to alert the worker to the early symptoms of skin cancer because at this stage it can usually he successfully treated. A warning placard and over 500,000 leaflets have been distributed by the Health and Safety Executive to alert workers to the symptoms and the importance of early detection.
The inspectorate has long had a keen interest in preventing this health problem, and in 1974, despite the many other demands made upon its resources, 361 special survey visits were made to factories using mineral oils to determine the position and to assess what further action needed to be taken. I should like to set out briefly some of the inspectorate's findings following this survey. Perhaps I may relate these findings to the main points of the control policy that I have previously described.
Although removing the carcinogen from the oil is a main feature of the policy, it was disappointing to find that only 66 per cent. of the firms were generally aware of the nature of solvent-refined oils and only 53 per cent. had deliberately adopted either solvent-refined oil or a substitute for neat oil. There was also room for improvement in containment of oil, for example by splash guards. And in 16 per cent. of the factories that were visited obvious improvements were thought to be necessary.
At only just over half of the factories were the workers thought to know sufficient about the hazards and detection of the symptoms of skin cancer. In fact, only 7 per cent. of the factories visited had ever had a case of scrotal cancer. The results of the survey have, of course, been circulated to the Factory Inspectorate, which has now suggested improvements in control measures. I want to take this opportunity to remind employers of their statutory obligation to ensure the


health and safety of their employees and to ensure that those who might be at risk are adequately warned of any special hazards.
Some of the weaknesses discovered have been the subject of discussion at the Health and Safety Executive headquarters, and these discussions have also included consideration of the criticisms made in the booklet published by the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science. I think my hon. Friend would probably agree that this is a discursive booklet which aims criticisms at many different targets. I want, however, to deal with a couple of the more signicant criticisms.
It is right to say that the Health and Safety Executive attaches importance to solvent refining, and at page 48 of the booklet it is suggested that too much reliance is placed on this technique. I hope my hon. Friend would agree that it is right to try to remove the carcinogen at source. In fact, the Health and Safety Executive proposes to discuss with the industry whether improvements can be made to the technique and also whether, for example by better labelling, the user can be given more information to judge whether oil is solvent-refined.
Another fundamental criticism is on page 81, where it is recommended that there should be six-monthly medical check-ups of workers exposed to oil. The Employment Medical Advisory Service, however, is of the opinion that this is not an effective use of medical manpower and would create an impossible demand on resources, and that it is more effective to rely primarily on frequent self-inspection by the workers. A review of the advisory leaflet on this is in hand, and I have already mentioned the continuing campaign to get the general case across in the factories at all levels.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to another category of risk, that of possible

damage to the lungs and digestive tract from inhalation or ingestion of mineral oil—the problem of oil mist. This subject is very much bound up with the threshold limit value for mineral oil. That value is 5 milligrams per cubic metre, and that represents the oil mist, based on American researches, which the Factory Inspectorate recognises as the amount which can be in the air of a workroom without causing any long-term risk to health. Inspectorate surveys have shown that this figure is rarely approached in British factories as the contamination of the air becomes offensive well below that figure. I should perhaps again stress that the threshold limit value has relevance not to skin or scrotal cancer but to possible and to so far unproven damage to the lungs and digestive tract.
I recognise my hon. Friend's anxiety and that of others, and the Health and Safety Executive is giving consideration to the reduction of the threshold limit value on the ground that offensive conditions should not be tolerated in workplaces.
I hope that what I have said will convince my hon. Friend that the Government are concerned to protect work people against the possible risk to health and also against the unpleasant working conditions which can be caused by uncontrolled use of mineral oil. I can assure my hon. Friend that, despite the encouraging decline over the last 30 years in the number of cases of skin and scrotal cancer caused by mineral oil, the Health and Safety Executive, which I am sure will have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend said, intends to continue and intensify its efforts until we finally rid our workplaces of this disease.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-sir minutes past Four o'clock.